Медитации на пустоту: объяснение шагов к пониманию того, что ничто не является самим собой, занятие 16

[Speaker 1]
Jñānaṃ soṅkhī janaṃ nāṃ jāṃ chu bhārtu dhāgnih khyāpsuṣṭhī dhāki chönyeng gibe sanam ki jñolābh eñchīr saṅge dupāśyo Jñānaṃ soṅkhī janaṃ nāṃ jāṃ chu bhārtu dhāgnih khyāpsuṣṭhī dhāki chönyeng gibe sanam ki jñolābh eñchīr saṅge dupāśyo Jñānaṃ soṅkhī janaṃ nāṃ jāṃ chu bhārtu dhāgnih khyāpsuṣṭhī dhāki chönyeng gibe sanam ki jñolābh eñchīr saṅge dupāśyo Jñānaṃ soṅkhī janaṃ nāṃ jāṃ chu bhārtu dhāgnih khyāpsuṣṭhī dhāki chönyeng gibe sanam ki jñolābh eñchīr saṅge dupāśyo Jñānaṃ soṅkhī janaṃ nāṃ jāṃ chu bhārtu dhāgnih khyāpsuṣṭhī This syllogism, this proof, and I'm going to read you the syllogism one more time. I kept putting it, for my own purposes, I kept copying it into the text, because he goes on about it so long that you forget what he's talking about. Okay, so here's the original syllogism again.

You want to read, Utpala?

[Speaker 2]
RANG RGYAL THUG PA'ANG NAM BU'I BDAG GCIG BYAS CHEN Which means? Let's consider a self that appears to be, that appears as self-standing.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that appears to be self-standing. Let's consider a self, a self-nature which appears to be self-standing. A self-nature?

We don't know yet. Okay. THUG PA DANG THUG PA DANG SEMS NI THUG PA'ANG RANG RGYAL THUG PA'I BDAG GCIG BYAS CHEN Yeah, it cannot be a self.

It cannot be a self-standing self, okay? Which is of an essentially different nature from parts of the body and mind. Because it's neither a self-standing one with the body and mind, nor is it a self-standing separate from the body and mind.

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Would you say then it's not a self-standing being?

[Speaker 1]
Mm-hmm. Since self-standingly is not really a word. I would say it's not a self-standing thing.

You can say that. It's not a self-standing thing which is one with, and it's not a self-standing thing which is separate from. Mm-hmm.

Because it's like the rat is one. Ant is, okay? If you don't exist, you can't be the same as a coffee cup or separate from a coffee cup.

Okay? All right. Now, what's the chok chö in terms of one, two, and three?

[Speaker 2]
Mm-hmm.

[Speaker 1]
Here's one, two, three, four, right? Four parts of a classic syllogism. Yes.

We take the subject, we assert something about it, and we give a reason to prove it, and we give a parallel example.

[Speaker 2]
So... The chok chö number.

[Speaker 1]
What's the chok chö here?

[Speaker 2]
A self that appears as self.

[Speaker 1]
Just give me numbers. Oh, one, two, three, four. Yeah, one is three.

That's easier. One is three. Okay?

Now you can state the chok chö. Go ahead. Oh, a self-nature that appears as substantially self-reliant in the sense of self-standing.

Yeah. Okay. You can say a me.

Let's try, I don't know, a me which could appear to be, which appears to be self-standing. By the way, I mean, it's not really comfortable. Is the tunpay yang bak a tunpay yang bak?

Is the example relevant?

[Speaker 2]
Well, apparently, neither of those things exist. A rebhangra is neither one nor the same as the...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, but does a rebhangra exist?

[Speaker 2]
Well, nor does the...

[Speaker 1]
Does it exist or not? No. Does the appearance of a self exist?

Yes.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Cool. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Does the self which appears exist? No. No.

Okay, let's translate it that way. Self which appears. Because we know it has to not exist.

We know from the syllogism it has to not exist. So then you translate it which way? You can't say the appearance of a self.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
You have to say the self which appears to be. You have to say a self, is what I'm saying. And that's how you can...

It's an understanding detector of a translator. Do they make this a theoretical thing or not? Because if they don't, they didn't get it.

And you see that... I mean, people give me Buddhist translations. I open them up.

I check for it. I do the understanding detector and I throw it out. Because they didn't say a.

They said the. Because it's a theoretical thing. It's not possible.

Why? Because it's like an example. You know it's not possible because of the...

Yeah. Because of the example at the end. It's like antlers on a rabbit.

Okay? That's called the... I call it the understanding indicator.

Got it. Okay, anyway. Here we go.

They shut the window over there? They shut it. They shut it?

Yes. You can invite him in and check your concentration. Now, may I point out that number three is a split reason, right?

Yeah. It's neither... It's not a self-standing thing which is the same as the body and mind.

And it's not a self-standing thing which is separate from the body and mind. Because that's where we are now. We're going to talk about 3A and 3B.

Are you alright with that? Just nod?

[Speaker 2]
It's okay.

[Speaker 1]
Down there you guys got to nod when I ask the questions. I say, do you want to give me $100? Any question I ask, just nod.

Okay, so here we go. Please... I'm going to scroll up to the top.

Just so we all know where we are. Should we skip one? No, we're finished.

Okay, go. Nice. I like your store.

Lame.

[Speaker 2]
Lame.

[Speaker 1]
Takji. Tak.

[Speaker 2]
Tak.

[Speaker 1]
Don't aspirate it. Tak.

[Speaker 2]
Takji.

[Speaker 1]
Good. Nice prenasal.

[Speaker 2]
Nikse. Takji na.

[Speaker 1]
Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Tak.

[Speaker 1]
Now... When you want to prove that something's not there, as we... We talked about this before.

If you want to prove... If Nick is never separate from Aaron, then if Aaron's not there, it proves that Nick's not there. And let's say Nick hates some guy, Joe Schmoe.

We won't say anybody. And they refuse to stay in the same room. So if Joe Schmoe is there, Nick's not there.

In one case, someone that Nick has a relationship with an inseparable relationship with, their presence proves that Nick is here. Their absence proves that Nick is not here. In the case of someone he hates, and he refuses to be in the same room with them, the presence of that person proves...

It's not there. Nick is not there. So in the first case, we call it a...

We call it a reason in which a relationship made is present or missing. What's the Tibetan English name? Gelnda.

Gelnda. Okay. One of a pair where there's a relationship.

And here, we're going to have gelnda marmi, which means Aaron's not here. A relationship made is not here. Gelnda.

Gelnda and gelnda.

[Speaker 2]
Next is gelnda. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
And then gelnda means a contradiction made. Which means someone you refuse to stay in the same room with. Their presence proves that you're not here.

So in the case of Aaron, her absence proves that I'm not here. And in the case of a person, Joshimo, you hate, his presence proves you're not here. Okay?

In one case, the absence of a person proves you're not here. And in one case, the presence of a person proves you're not here. So these are both proofs, classical types of proofs for proving something is not there.

And the most classic proof of proofs that something's not there is proofs of emptiness. And these are, so these are some of the most important proofs of all. They are called, say, ma mitpay tak.

Proof that something's not there. And there's two ways to prove that something's not there. You can prove that someone they're always with is not there.

Or you can prove that someone they hate is there. Okay? Okay, got it?

Here we go. CHOG CHUG GI SON NGA MA'I LTAG NI SON NGA MA means the part before. Meaning the first element in the reason that was given.

The first element in the reason that was given in the CHOG CHUG CHOG CHUG Major premise or minor premise in Western logic?

[Speaker 2]
CHOG CHUG Is the major premise.

[Speaker 1]
I think it's minor, I'm not sure, but you check. I think the keval might be the major premise. But let's not go there.

I don't even want to use those words. What is CHOG CHUG? It's that the subject Oh, I see.

The reason. The subject Take the sky It's colored because it's blue. What do you call the sky that's blue?

True of What do you want to call CHOG CHUG? One is three.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, one is three.

[Speaker 1]
I'm going to call it one is three. The reason is true of the subject. Maybe that's not accurate English.

You could say that. It's clear.

[Speaker 2]
The reason is true of the subject.

[Speaker 1]
The fact that the reason applies to the subject.

[Speaker 2]
The fact that the reason is true of the subject.

[Speaker 1]
Let's try that.

[Speaker 2]
I like it. That's pretty good.

[Speaker 1]
In the case of the first half of the fact that the reason applies to the subject.

[Speaker 2]
Who's that MA?

[Speaker 1]
MA means previous.

[Speaker 2]
It's not a negative thing.

[Speaker 1]
It's not a feminine. So RGYAL DA MIG PA We have Joe Schmoe. He's in the room.

RGYAL DA Someone you cannot coexist with is present. MIG PA RGYAL DA A partner, a contradiction partner is present. Now The type of proof where the presence of something proves that something else is not there.

The presence of something proves that something else is not there. Now let's go back to the first half of the reason that was given. Let's go back here.

Well, I wrote it here for you. But let's go back here. RGYAL DA MIG PA RGYAL DA MIG PA That this person, this self, is one and the same.

In a self-standing way, is one and the same with the body and mind. Think of it as the body and mind. It is the body and mind.

The soul is the body and mind. The soul is the same thing as the body and mind. It's not in control of the body and mind.

It is the body and mind. A soul where there is a body and mind is supposed to be inconsistent with body and mind.

[Speaker 2]
I don't know what you mean.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, we're trying to It's a MA MIG Let's go back. Let's go slower. It's a MA MIG PA'I THAG Which means we're trying to prove something is not there.

What are we trying to prove is not there? It's the two. Number two.

What we're trying to prove is not there is number two. Take take this self that appears to be self-standing. It's not It's not a self which is of an essentially different nature than the body and mind.

There is no self. There is no self which is of an essentially different nature from body and mind. That's what we're trying to prove is not there.

That's NIK. In both cases, that's NIK. In both cases, we're trying to prove NIK's not there.

In the first case, we use a GAL NA We use someone he can't coexist with, Joe Schmo. First we say we say NIK's not there. Why?

Well, first of all, Joe Schmo is there. Second of all, Aaron's not there. We're using two-part reason.

It's a two-part reason. NIK's not in the room. Why?

Well, first of all, Joe Schmo's there and NIK refuses to sit in the same room with him. Second of all, Aaron is there and NIK won't stay in the room if Aaron's not there. So it's a split reason.

In the first half of the reason, someone is there who's... what do you want to call it? Incompatible with NIK.

Yeah, good. That's correct. And secondly, Aaron is not there who is super compatible with NIK.

Hopefully.

[Speaker 2]
So because we have two negatives and there is a self which is...

[Speaker 1]
Well, you lost me there.

[Speaker 2]
Well, we're trying to prove that number two is not there. And number two is the same in the sense that it's not there.

[Speaker 1]
Well, no. I'm just saying the element given into before man is not there. A self, which is essentially different from the body and mind.

Like a soul, who's floating around the body, which is not your mind and is not your body. Different stuff. Different stuff.

Incompatible stuff. There's no such one. Why?

Well, first of all, it's not the same as the body and mind. And second of all, it's not separate from the body and mind. So I'm trying to understand how is that...

because what is there that's the same as the body and mind? Let's go back. I wrote them down for you.

gyel na mikpay tak yin na To appear to be separate from the body and mind. To appear to be separate from the body and mind is incompatible with being one with the body and mind. Okay.

The appearance of being separate is... Yeah. To appear to be separate from the body and mind.

To appear to be separate from the body and mind is incompatible with being one with the body and mind. If something were self-existently part of your body and mind, it could never appear to be separate from your body and mind. That's the point.

You got to say self-existently. If something were self-existently the same if something were self-existently in your body and mind it would never appear to be separate from your body and mind. Distinct from your body and mind.

[Speaker 2]
So we try to say if they appear to be separate then that's joshmo.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Appearing to be separate is joshmo. Yeah, you can say that.

And being the same as body and mind self-existently is nik.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Aaron. Aaron.

Yeah, Aaron. No, Nick.

[Speaker 1]
We didn't get to Aaron yet. Okay. So nik is it's the same as body and mind self-existently.

Who's not there. Yeah, and he's not there because it can't exist separately. Which is to appear to be separate.

It can't be self-existently the same as body and mind and still appear separate from body and mind. So joshmo is to appear to be separate. Yeah.

It's awful quiet in here.

[Speaker 2]
What is consciousness? Have we confirmed that it's true that it appears to be separate?

[Speaker 1]
He's taking it as a given. No, we say yeah. Yeah, because it appears well, I don't know.

Did we confirm? Yeah, we must have. If it's a thought.

If it's a reason we gave. It must be we believe it. But don't forget the whole thing is talking about a rabbit antlers.

You can almost say anything you want. You're confirming that everything's impossible. The reason you give is also impossible.

Theoretical, but not possible. Don't forget the thing we're talking about doesn't exist. You can say anything.

It's blue because it's green. It's not blue because it's not green. It's correct.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, you established that yesterday, right?

[Speaker 1]
Well, anyway, no, that's not true. Anyway, the latter part of the reason, 3B, is a proof for something not being there. Okay, nigg.

This mamigpa means nigg. I'm sorry, I take it back. Oh yeah, that's errant.

In general, this is a mamigpe dhag. Inside of the mamigpe dhag, there's a jangdang mamigpa, which is not the same as the mamigpa in mamigpe dhag. The whole syllogism is a mamigpe dhag.

And this is a confusion in the study of syllogisms. This whole syllogism is called a mamigpe dhag, which means proof that something's not there. Proof that nigg's not there.

And inside the mamigpe dhag, we have a split reason. The second part of the reason involves the absence, the mamigpa, of the person who's always a sidekick. So this mamigpa is not the same as the mamigpa in the mamigpe dhag.

This is the jangdang mamigpa, which isn't the same as mamigpa in mamigpe dhag. I'll say it again, the whole reason, the whole syllogism, the whole logical statement is a mamigpe dhag. It's of a class called mamigpe dhag, which means we're proving something is not there.

In the proof, you can state something is there or something's not there to prove the other thing's not there. And now we're talking about the reason where we're saying something's not there to prove that something else is not there. So don't get confused.

This mamigpe dhag only refers to the three B. One, two, three, four are called mamigpe dhag. They're also called mamigpe dhag.

The whole syllogism, one, two, three, and four is a kind of mamigpe dhag. And this happens to be one. I mean, nationally, it's combining two different kinds of mamigpe dhag.

Normally, a mamigpe dhag is either gelnda mikpa or gelnda mamikpa. The person he can't stand is there or the woman he loves is not there.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? Now, because people get really confused. They're like, because there's two mamikpas here.

The whole syllogism, one, two, three, four, is called a mamigpe dhag because it's proving that something isn't their mamikpa. Okay? Classically, you can use two reasons to prove that.

Someone he doesn't like is present or someone he loves is not present. The one that someone he loves is not present is unfortunately also called mamikpa.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
You all right? So you're learning logic by accident. Adam's going to get to it eventually.

I know Josh's presentation is one of the best in the universe. He's going to get to formal logic. Formal logic is part of his text, but it comes later.

You have to use it forever and then you learn it. Now let's figure out what is that gelnda? Yeah.

Who is Aaron here? A self, which could be separate from the body and mind, which could be a separate thing from the body and mind, is something that must be around if the self is separate from body and mind. A self, who is a separate thing, who is a different thing than the body and mind, must be around if the self is something which is separate from the body and mind.

All self-existence, self-existence, self-existence. I'll say it again. It all relies on these words, le dun shen, a different thing than, a different thing than.

If it's a different... If the soul is separate from the body and mind, pa de, then it must be something different from the body and mind. That's all.

That's all. So if there's nothing there which is different from the body and mind, then there can't be anything there which is separate from the body and mind. That's Aaron and Nate.

That's clear. You know how long it took me to figure this out? Ten minutes.

That's nine.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, no, it took a little longer.

[Speaker 1]
BHOGYI DANG PHYIR MA DE No, that's how much time you have left. PHYIR MA DE Now he says, let's talk about the latter part of the reason above. Good luck.

Which one? Which one? Then I figured out you have to go to a different syllogism.

We're not in the same syllogism anymore. GONG GI BDAG GONG GI BDAG PHYIR MA means let's talk about the reason above, the latter reason above. Let's talk about the latter reason above.

Any... Just four pieces above, count. One, two, three, four.

Here it is here. I counted for you. Go four pieces above, four sections above.

One, two, three, four. Here's the SOG CIG MA. It's called the second half.

The second half. DE PHYIR CHEN I filled in the DE for you. Let's take the self, which appears to be self-standing.

Totally misspelled here. Good luck. PHYIR CHEN Forget the CHEN though.

It's PHYIR CHEN. Totally radically misspelled. Let's take the...

Let's take the self, this takes the soul that appears to exist. Let's take this soul that appears to exist. PHUNG PO DANG RANG RGYAL THUG PA'I THA LAS DU MED TE It's not separate from the body and mind in a self-standing way.

It's not separate from the body and mind in a self-standing way because it doesn't exist, ME as a DU thing, which is other than, DON GZHAN, THAN, LAS, the body and mind. Which is to say, it's not separate from the body and mind because it's not something which is different from the body and mind. This is restating the same exact reason.

This is the RGYAL MA, right? Right. So now below, he says, by the way, I'll prove to you the second half.

I'll prove to you the second half of the reason and the syllogism. 3B, 3B. DE PHYIR CAN, which is what?

Let's take the self which appears to be self-standing. That was the original PHYIR CAN. That was the original subject of discussion.

Is there a soul which is self-standing, which is independent? DE PHYIR CAN, let's consider that. PHUNG PO LAS DON GZHAN DU MED TE No, it's not a separate thing from the body and mind because PHUNG PO LAS DON GZHAN DU MED TE it's something which must be labeled onto the body and mind.

So this Tibetan is a little tricky here. DON GZHAN DU DON GZHAN DU DON GZHAN means don't say above or on top of. It must be labeled.

When you say apply a label in Tibetan, you always say DON GZHAN DU, on top of. There's the pen shape and the pen color and then the label, which is the mental image, is applied to the parts. We don't say on top of the parts.

So please don't translate this as on top of the parts. So the point is an overlay. In English we say overlay.

You're going to overlay this with this. So in Tibetan that's called DANG NAS BDAG DANG NAS BDAG labeled on top. It's established by a labeling process.

It's established by a labeling process. So let's just put it in DCI terms. I look at the pen.

Last week I share a pen with somebody. I see my hand open and I see the pen released with good wishes. I release a pen to another person's hand with good wishes.

I see my hand open. That brushes against my mind. It goes through my eye consciousness and it brushes.

We're not talking words text. In which case it's all happening in the kunshi. Forget that.

I just want to confuse everybody. It comes through the eye. It brushes against the mind and then it creates an impression.

I like to go like this. I like to do it this way. It brushes against the mind.

It creates an impression. I like to go like this. And then under the mind it's planted a seed.

A seed forms under the mind. Then a week later it splits open. You're looking at pieces.

It's not even pieces of a pen yet. You cannot say pieces of a pen yet. You are looking at blue and long.

I don't have a blue and long. You are looking at blue and long. You are looking at blue and long.

Don't call it pieces of a pen yet. You are looking at blue. This is a European pen.

[Speaker 2]
German. Germans have to make them fancy.

[Speaker 1]
It's blue and it's long. You are looking at blue and long. Then the seed opens in your mind that you planted last week because you shared a pen with somebody.

The seed opens in your mind. A hologram. Nowadays I like to call it a hologram.

You can say a luminous image. When you reach Drolan Chodro, you will see it yourself. You will see your luminous images.

For the first time, directly. Then the luminous image comes out of the karmic seed and it's overlaid onto the parts. Then the thing becomes a pen.

It's interesting. They say, ,RDOG BYA LA RDOG BYA'I NAS BDAG PA'I PHYIR There is a labeler. There is a labeled thing.

When the labeler goes to the labeled thing, you get a labeled... Sorry. When the labeler goes to the thing to be labeled, you get a labeled thing.

You get the... And sometimes they say, finished labeled thing. BDAG PA'I PHYIR No, it's Prasangika.

Here, in this language here, things exist, shak. Things are established by jok. Shak, jok, past tense.

Things are established through what?

[Speaker 2]
Being...

[Speaker 1]
A label is applied to the body and mind.

[Speaker 2]
A label is applied to the body and mind.

[Speaker 1]
Then you get ne. You get ne. Okay?

And you can... And that's coming out of karma, okay? And when that karma wears out, you get Alzheimer's.

You can't unify your body anymore. You can't... You can't unify the picture anymore.

You don't even recognize your kids, your own kids. And then you lose your own self-identity because you don't have the karma anymore to tie it together. You don't have the karma for this labeling anymore.

Okay, it's very interesting. You can even lose that. You can even lose the impression that you are a self.

[Speaker 2]
Wow. I don't understand.

[Speaker 1]
So this is a very important word and I like it when they say DOG CHE BDAG BYA BDAG PA'I PHYIR Labeler. Thing receiving the label. And the resulting labeled thing.

That's a beautiful... Sometimes they'll say that.

[Speaker 2]
Can we put this into a sentence with a verb? I'm getting confused about the... BDAG PA'I PHYIR is a...

I mean, it's not a verb.

[Speaker 1]
It is a... No, it's a past tense and a verb.

[Speaker 2]
Oh yeah. It is a... Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
By a label having been applied to the body and mind. Established by a label having been applied to the body and mind. Label.

But the cool thing about DCRI, you identify the label as what's coming out of the karmic stream. Right. Then you tie it all to karma.

Okay? You all right? You look confused, Stanley.

By the way, we're about to reach the Mind-Only School. And it's worse.

[Speaker 2]
Yay!

[Speaker 1]
Worse. What school are we in, by the way?

[Speaker 2]
We're in Sautrantika. Sautrantika? By the process of elimination?

[Speaker 1]
Sautrantika. Sautrantika. Are we out of time, or can I cover this?

We have time. Okay, good.

[Speaker 2]
Let's go. We have seven minutes.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, this is a beautiful wrap-up. Okay, he's wrapping up. He's released you from this...

I want to use a bad word, syllogism. B-I syllogism. He's releasing you.

He says, okay, we beat that syllogism to death. You don't understand anything. Let's go on.

RANG RGYUD PA MAN BYED KYI RANG BDE Those who belong to schools of the Sautrantika on down, including the Sautrantika. So this is an idiomatic use of RANG BDE. Those who belong to schools, you see, of the lower middle way on down.

[Speaker 2]
Well, it's Buddhist, RANG BDE, right?

[Speaker 1]
They say, we're going to the third line, second syllable. They assert. What do they accept?

They say, let's go backwards now, syntax. They say that it's new, possible to talk, tarpa, moksha, escape from samsara, nirvana, when you, when you, SPANG, have given up, SPANG, past tense, believing in the self, yeah, holding to a self nature, holding to some... And you see, if you're going to pass the mistake detector, you have to say something like, holding to some self nature.

You see, you have to indicate that you understand that it cannot exist. And then the reader knows you're a good translator. Every time you get near akhman, dot, in the Tibetan sentence, you're saying, which could be, or which would be.

And you don't say which is, because that indicates you don't understand that it's a ribong ra. And I use this just all the time. And I just throw the book out.

I literally throw the book out. People hand me stuff in airports a lot. Oh, Geshe-la, you're leaving for, you have six more stops on your trip.

Here's a big box to carry on the airplane. And I open it, and there's a Buddhist translation. Like, I want a Buddhist translation.

And then they... I open it up and it says, thus self, or here. You see, which have given up a self, not thus self.

Okay? Which could be. You see what I mean?

And if it doesn't say that, I just literally throw it out before I get to the gate. If you could collect all the stuff from garbage cans between the customs and the gate at every airport we go through, you would be rich.

[Speaker 2]
That is, you don't want to bring volatile elements of life.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. They say, Geshe, that it's possible, nu, to achieve nirvana by having given up holding to some kind of self, to a self. Don't say thus self.

To a self nature. And how do you get there? How do you bang?

How do you spank? Wow. Ni.

We had it in words text. Yeah. Your author positivized it as kona.

Okay, only by, it's supplied to only by. Don't ignore the ni. Only by having meditated past tense, no skom, no buskoms.

And actually, this means habituated yourself to. It doesn't mean meditate anymore. If it had a B, if it had an S, it would mean meditate.

Without the B or the S, you must translate it as get used to. Become accustomed to. Which is usually, the word kom, as got used to, is almost always the second of two verbs.

You must block and get used to it. You must boop and you must do it over and over again. So it almost, kom almost always, kom, almost always comes as the second of two verbs.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
You must stoks. Yeah, you have to realize that there is no such self nature. You have to realize that there is no self nature, meaning ranggyatupa, self-standing.

Okay? This has been the theme. You have to realize that there's no self-standing self, right?

Either the same as or separate from your body and mind. You can throw in another self-standing there if you want to be correct. Self-standingly.

Okay? You realize it. Then you get used to it.

You do it again and again. You meditate again and again. You get used to that idea.

Which kind of implies here two of the five paths.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, right.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, tonglam and gomlam, okay? Actually it is that. He's implying the third and fourth of the five paths.

You see it, Jay?

[Speaker 2]
Jay, yeah, right. It's a misspelled, sorry. Oh, brutal.

[Speaker 1]
I can't wait to find out what that word is. Yeah. I still don't know.

Didn't they? Sache. Just sache.

Oh, just sache. Okay. Meaning the one we just spent ten pages describing.

Yeah, okay. So you realize you realize that that kind of self, meaning the one we just described, cannot exist. Then you get used to that realization that you had.

You sit with it for a while and only by this means, only by this means, okay? You got to have a big only there. Only by this means can you finally eliminate your tendency to believe there is a self, or a soul.

And then you can, and by doing all this, they believe that's the only way you can achieve nirvana. Let's do this last sentence. sok kye gyu kyi dun duk dang chen chen gyi duk Good boy.

kor tsi wa was korway tsaw, okay? Oh wow. Did we do it?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, we did.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Oh, I see. Well, yeah, let's go to the young shay.

Syntactically, let's go to the young shay. Cool. They also, shay.

Yeah, they also believe. Who's they?

[Speaker 2]
Lower mini way.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Rang gyu pa min shay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, good. The lower middle way and the schools below them. How many schools below them, we don't really know.

He didn't specify. Probably all the way down to the alphabet. I think it's all the way down to the alphabet.

They also say.

[Speaker 2]
Does min shay have to mean that? No, rang gyu. Not.

Not the devil.

[Speaker 1]
They also assert, okay, that this type of len kye, inborn, not learned, they also assert that this kind of tendency, that the tendency to hold to this kind of a self, as an inborn habit, in the mind of a person who hasn't seen emptiness directly, they would say is the tsala of karma.

[Speaker 2]
Now, now, now, now.

[Speaker 1]
Don't fight with Sugai. Because in his text, is the first link always learned or always innate? Always innate.

You guys find it out.

[Speaker 2]
No, no, no. First link, no, it's not learned.

[Speaker 1]
He's lower middle way, by the way. He's our lower middle way man.

[Speaker 2]
You're not.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, they do. I'm asking you. I'm not saying.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, yeah, yeah. We'll ask him to go study it. So, we're putting the pressure on him.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, then, if it's the shlenge version, then an Arya is not free of the Wheel of Life. Because they only get rid of the Tantra version. They're not free yet of the Wheel of Life.

They're still... But they are free of the Wheel of Life. They don't spin new wheels.

But they don't spin new wheels because they stop the first of the twelve links. But if the first of the twelve links is the inborn kind, then they cannot have stopped it. Because they only stop the contact kind, the intellectual kind.

That indicates that his school believes that the first link is always the learned one. It's the learned one.

[Speaker 2]
They talked, but they didn't come.

[Speaker 1]
Well, you guys find it out. I mean, you're both supposed to be in the debate ground. They'll say, well, whose hat are you wearing today?

Whose hat have you got on today? Are you lower middle way hat? Or are you higher middle way hat?

Whose hat have you got on? Supposedly you have the same hat on right now. But I have a feeling he's going to say it's kunta, and you're saying it's shlenge.

So you guys have to get together and fight it out.

[Speaker 2]
But the exception is that this is a prasangika writing this about what it is they believe. Well, that's a...

[Speaker 1]
So is what they believe what they wrote they believe? Also, Ketut and Dargis, not prasangikas? No, it's the same.

[Speaker 2]
These guys agree with each other in reporting the other.

[Speaker 1]
Well, I'm just saying, this is a little uncomfortable.

[Speaker 2]
He's from Sereme, so he's definitely high school.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, they're both prasangikas from the same college.

[Speaker 2]
If we keep his yikja, he must be right.

[Speaker 1]
Sounds like a good place to start. A-priority. A-priority.

Yeah, it sounds like a good place to start. We're going to get to the mind-only now.

[Speaker 2]
I thought we spent a long time on the paragraphs so you could avoid mind-only.

[Speaker 1]
I know what's going on here.

[Speaker 2]
Let's do it backwards. Let's do it forwards.

[Speaker 1]
Oh yeah, look at the mistakes. Look how many mistakes. Oh, that's terrible.

You can't understand it without mistakes.

[Speaker 2]
This is what makes me feel hopeless, Geshe-la, about being able to translate on my own.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, just think, all those people typing in Tibet are making more mistakes. The next generation of texts is going to be even worse. That's discouraging.

The people are typing and they're making lots of mistakes, and they don't fix it. All these books are typed.

[Speaker 2]
Those books are carved. We need one day to be able to pay enough to pay all those guys who weren't in the Twelve to type these, because they're almost Geshes.

[Speaker 1]
Right, right.

[Speaker 2]
Instead of having them go to the kitchen and type correctly.

[Speaker 1]
Six of those are total goop balls.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, so the others? Yeah, not them.

[Speaker 1]
The other six could have been, and often times they try harder after that, and sometimes they work their way up.

[Speaker 2]
Say again? Why don't they type in Tibetan? Script?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, us.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
It's just to help you guys. It's just to make it easier for you guys.

[Speaker 2]
Wouldn't they watch that mistake?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, no. No, I'll tell you. Well, this is a common misconception.

When you type Chinese, you use an English keyboard. Yes. You're typing pinyin.

You see what I mean? So, you are inputting with Roman letters. If they want them to see Tibetan on the screen, they will still make the same mistake.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, it's the same. Same keyboard. They still have to hit the right keys.

[Speaker 1]
They still have to use the keyboard. We call it QWERTY. K-Q-W-E-R-T-Y They still use a QWERTY keyboard.

Part of the reason, part of the reason is we wanted them to be able to get work in other places. We don't want them to use a keyboard which only a million people in the world are using. We want them to use a keyboard that three billion people are using.

Because we want them to be able to get jobs when this thing ends, and this thing will end someday, right? So, for example, some people got jobs in the American Embassy. They can type English because they're used to this keyboard.

So, that was one reason.

[Speaker 2]
The fonts go extinct. Until about six years ago, it wouldn't have been searchable.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, by the way, we also computers were invented for these letters. The coding, ASCII, the original coding of all computers is this. All computers can make these letters.

So, we store it like that. Then, if a Tibetan wants to read it, we print it in Tibetan, you see? Like all these books.

And we have the whole database in Tibetan.

[Speaker 2]
And we can spit this out in Tibetan.

[Speaker 1]
You don't even need to program it in Tibetan. The whole database is there for Tibetans in Tibetan letters. But we store it in ASCII.

ASCII means computer language. Which is Roman, right now. It could be Chinese in 2018.

If America goes away, it's going to be Roman.

[Speaker 2]
Well, on that note, let's dedicate that.

[Speaker 1]
SANGYE SHINGDU MIKTAYUWARGI JOKUN NAMDAK SHINGLA JUPAR SHOK IDHAM KURU RABDHA MANDALA KAM NIRYATAYAMI DIGLA SANGYE SHINGDU MIKTAYUWARGI JOKUN NAMDAK SHINGLA JUPAR SHOK IDHAM KURU RABDHA MANDALA KAM NIRYATAYAMI