Медитации на пустоту: объяснение шагов к пониманию того, что ничто не является самим собой, занятие 20

[Speaker 1]
I thought you would go loud.

[Speaker 2]
In the context of the Mind-Only School, what three things are going on when you see blue? There's an object appearing to you as blue, there's an object in the Kunshi that appears to you as blue, there's a fox-shock in the Kunshi that makes you see that blue as being something coming from its own side. So there's no consciousness to which blue is appearing as blue.

Okay.

[Speaker 1]
There's three numbers, right? That's what you're getting at. What are the three numbers?

[Speaker 2]
You see it as blue, you think that it's blue.

[Speaker 1]
Blue appears as blue.

[Speaker 2]
You think of it as an outer object, and you think that it deserves the name blue.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. That must be named blue. That's what's wrong if you don't do the text of every other one.

[Speaker 2]
It's not must. It's that it...

[Speaker 1]
Well, you didn't say must, but...

[Speaker 2]
I didn't say must either, for the record. I said deserves the name blue.

[Speaker 1]
Well, no, I think we can assume that's what he means. Okay, so it appears that blue is blue. It appears that...

[Speaker 2]
It appears that blue is outside.

[Speaker 1]
It appears that blue is an outside object. And it appears that it must have been called whatever it's called. I believe it was a visible form.

[Speaker 2]
It's a visible form that has the characteristics of the things that they were blue. It is a visible form that has the characteristics of the things that they were blue.

[Speaker 1]
The point is, there's three things going on. Blue is appearing as blue. You're believing that it's an outside object.

It appears to be an outside object. And it appears to be that it should have been called that object. Okay, next.

[Speaker 2]
Are any of these three correct in this? So, which one is it? Incorrect.

Incorrect, sorry. First one's okay.

[Speaker 1]
First one's okay. Blue's okay.

[Speaker 2]
That's about it.

[Speaker 1]
It's not an outer object. And it didn't have to be called what it is. Neil Young is the cross of these three.

[Speaker 2]
No, it is the basis. You said before, in class, that it is three, but it's not two.

[Speaker 1]
He didn't mention it, but the point is that. The point is that you're having ignorance.

[Speaker 2]
Because we're just talking about the three. We're not talking yet about... Anyway, maybe it's different now.

Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Well, don't forget, that whole scene is infected by those two bad seeds. You see what I mean? The two bad seeds are infecting everything.

[Speaker 2]
Right?

[Speaker 1]
Right? Okay. Terry.

[Speaker 2]
I don't know. Maybe after we do this.

[Speaker 1]
No, that three is great. What's causing you to have the two of the three? What's causing you to have two of the three?

What's causing the last two appearances? The two types of naughty bok chok? Yeah, the two types of naughty bok chok.

[Speaker 2]
The rotten fish in the fridge.

[Speaker 1]
Is there any hope of correlating those to the two and three? Because the two bok choks are for seeing what? Things and people.

Things and people. Yeah, so not really. But then those two, because you said those three, the number one, blue appearance.

Blue appearance is not caused by the infection. You're going to have trouble. Yeah, it's not an infection.

Other objects would be things if you wanted to correlate them. Is there a correlation between the two? I don't know.

[Speaker 2]
Is there a what?

[Speaker 1]
Is two or three more related to the person or to the parts of the person? Can you correlate the two bad seeds in the kunshi to those two mistakes? In this school, is one of them more the self-existence of the person and one is more the self-existence of things?

[Speaker 2]
Well, I would only say things just because that's what we're focusing on now.

[Speaker 1]
Right, good.

[Speaker 2]
But I don't know why. No, keep going. Why?

[Speaker 1]
Why? Because in this school, what is it to hold to the self-existence of things?

[Speaker 2]
That they exist as an outer object and that they are... Oh, I'm sorry.

[Speaker 1]
People.

[Speaker 2]
I'm sorry.

[Speaker 1]
In this school, what's the self-existence of the person? Her text told us.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, that they don't come from the same seed.

[Speaker 1]
No, her text started out by saying...

[Speaker 2]
They're substantial in the sense of being self-existent.

[Speaker 1]
dak chik rawa chen gyi dak It's the same as what the other guy said. When we got to the mind-only section of her text, the author said, I'm not going to bother with the self-existence of people because it's the same as what we just went through with the two lower schools. dak chik rawa chen gyi dak Unchanging.

[Speaker 2]
Unitarian.

[Speaker 1]
Substantial in the sense of self-standing. He said, I'm not going to go into that because it's the same as what we just argued against for the two lower schools. So can you say that the two seeds for trouble in the kunshi, can you split them up between the second and the third appearances here?

Can you say one relates more to people and one relates more to things? One is outer objects and one is that thing had to be called outer. Do those relate?

[Speaker 2]
So the third must be more things.

[Speaker 1]
Things. And so is the second. That's what I'm trying to say.

The misunderstanding of the person goes way back to the beginning of your text and that hasn't changed. And so they don't even bother to talk about it. It's not in the list of appearances.

Okay? Got it? Okay.

Is this where we are? I think so.

[Speaker 2]
You have to take the plane.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, sorry. Three Tibetan words. Oh, you got your three Tibetan words?

[Speaker 2]
What is this?

[Speaker 1]
Make them suffer. Make them suffer.

[Speaker 2]
Come on. Tane jyuk pe jyuk shi.

[Speaker 1]
Tane jyuk pe jyuk shi. Give them a name? Yeah.

The thing to which the name is applied. The thing to which the name is applied. Tane jyuk pe jyuk shi.

The object of application to which the name is applied.

[Speaker 2]
I think we could still label one word in the act of applying labels.

[Speaker 1]
Good. Secondly, what was your next one?

[Speaker 2]
I'm not sure if there's apprehending.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, good. I like the use of apprehend, for example.

[Speaker 2]
She's talking about her mom.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, yeah, okay. Yeah, she's talking about her mom. Zhang Toki.

This is a giveaway. By itself. Now, in his text, in the study of mental functions, Zhang Toki has a specific meaning.

Can this mental function operate on its own, or does it have to be tsung den with another one to do its thing? Linked. Yeah, it doesn't have to be linked to another one to do its thing.

For example, anger has to be linked to some kind of visual awareness or auditory awareness. To be aware of the person you're angry at has to be linked to the anger. You can't just be angry for nothing.

[Speaker 2]
Well, all right. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Anyway, Zhang Toki has this text in your text. All right, let's go, Mrs. Bala. Go for it, go for it.

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm not up there.

[Speaker 2]
I'm not up there. Oh, shen. Sorry.

Nice.

[Speaker 1]
DE PHYIR By the way, this is Mrs. Bala. Right? They're not logicians.

They are mentalists. Okay, with a sa, it's logic. Without the sa, it means mind.

So the mentalists, I like to call them mentalists because it's a cute word, which is the? Minoan school. Okay.

They believe, okay, here's the believe down here. They believe what? If you take a soke, a non-arya, if you take a non-arya, okay, and you talk about their nunsun, their direct sense power perception, which apprehends blue.

Okay, now you're not talking about the awareness of blue, you're talking about this stupid, raw, unthinking perception of blue by the cells at the back of the eye, which is wongo, okay, sense power. You're not talking about being aware of blue mentally. Okay, it's a very crude step here.

Wangbo ngun sum yang, even that, rang gi nang yu la chung, even that. Even that is a type of elaboration or? That's SPR.

That's PH. This is like this? This is KH.

Isn't it MNH? No, mistaken. Oh, mistaken.

So what's it say? It's a mistake. It's a mistake.

Even that appearance is a type of mistake. It's a mistake. Even the sense perception of blue is mistaken towards what's appearing to it.

Nang yu. Okay, don't forget, I mean, we should go off on KBJ. Even the sense perception.

His sema de dun, yu ti min so, because he has a beautiful presentation, shen yu, zen pang gi yu, mik yu, okay, all these, what's appearing to you, how you take it, okay, but this one's easy. Nang yu means the object as it appears to you. The object as it appears to you.

It is mistaken about what appears to it. What appears to it? That blue is out.

[Speaker 2]
But it's just a power.

[Speaker 1]
I know. It's already bubu-ing. It's kind of layered.

In this school, nam rikpe, okay? And, de cang ne, this is a past tense of den.

[Speaker 2]
It's a pull.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, which is elicited by it, which is pulled up by it, okay? Okay, de tenpe, de cang ne, kye pey tokpa, the tokpa without an S, which is inspired by that awareness of blue. What's it mean?

Yeah, like ideas. In English, when you use the word idea, he has an idea that I want to hurt him, but actually I don't care about him. You know, okay?

So, idea is great for tokpa, without the S. With the S it means?

[Speaker 2]
Realize.

[Speaker 1]
To realize. Without the S it's like, he has some idea, I don't know. Usually it's wrong.

So, that blue perception, right? By the eyeball, pulls up this wrong idea, okay? And that idea is shen yu la tu, not nan yu la tu.

What's the difference?

[Speaker 2]
You're attached to it incorrectly? It's emanating.

[Speaker 1]
Shen yu, you have to translate as the object that it believes. The object as it feels it is there.

[Speaker 2]
Right. Okay?

[Speaker 1]
So now it's not nan yu la anymore. Blue appears to you, and then you have a feeling about it. That's shen yu la, okay?

And they're different. The thing appearing to you is blue. How you feel about it, like the door, right?

Is that it's outside. Got it? So what's the shen yu la?

An outside blue. Does it exist?

[Speaker 2]
Nan yu la tu. An outside blue.

[Speaker 1]
It doesn't exist as you take it to be, but it exists as something you take.

[Speaker 2]
An outside blue exists as something you take.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. It's a mistaken idea. The mistaken idea exists.

Yeah, the tokpa. Okay, got it? It doesn't have to be right.

You can imagine a three-headed elephant. The imagination exists. It doesn't correspond to reality.

Okay? The shen ba exists. The belief in it exists.

But what it believes is wrong.

[Speaker 2]
Unlocking. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, good, nice. And they take that wrong idea about how it feels about the blue, which is that it's an outside blue. It's an outside object.

That's chukyadantra.

[Speaker 2]
Oh. That's lack of self-nature to things.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's a lack of self-nature to things. Okay, got it?

[Speaker 2]
Not a lack, but that is the, if there were such a thing, It holds to the lack. Oh, holding.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Holds to the nama. Yeah, you got it.

Now, this is an interesting correction.

[Speaker 2]
Wow. I didn't know.

[Speaker 1]
I was like, please read loudly. You have the plane. Okay, next one.

Oh, okay, sorry.

[Speaker 2]
Nam rikpa tang mi drawe kepar cheyo.

[Speaker 1]
Whoa, hi. Come on, man. Okay.

Not easy. Your text is difficult.

[Speaker 2]
I kind of know this.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, then.

[Speaker 2]
My homework was all wrong.

[Speaker 1]
Dang it. It's somewhere. It's here?

I know, I can't get it off. It's probably to remind me I don't know what you're thinking today. De-nyi means two of the four schools.

Two of the four schools. And this is the referring to the ced-ap-ma-wa-sa-nyi-to-kyi. They are called dun-ma.

[Speaker 2]
That's a neat name for them.

[Speaker 1]
They profess objects. They profess objects. I went and got it for you because you should probably have a footnote.

I looked around and found you a footnote you can use. And I'm going to ask you to... How long was that?

What I did was I go back to the page number. So you've got everything you need to make a footnote and a bibliography. I'm going to check it when we come back to you tomorrow.

Next day.

[Speaker 2]
I get one day off tomorrow and then it's...

[Speaker 1]
Oh, you do?

[Speaker 2]
Paula every morning. Where does it start?

[Speaker 1]
Let's start here and see if it's enough for your footnote. We'll have to fix some problems here. Let's start reading here.

The reason I started with more material is I wanted you to hit a page number. So start from here. Let's see if it works.

Let's see if it even means more than that. Yeah, why don't you keep going? Nice, okay.

So I went and got you an explanation of why they're called dönmo. Professors of objects. Object professors.

Guys who profess objects. ched do means... Anybody want to take a shot?

Nice. Detailers and sutras. chedamawa dandoka.

chedamawa dandodepa.

[Speaker 2]
chedok.

[Speaker 1]
Those two schools, they believe chedun, outer objects. When you talk about outer objects, you should mainly describe them as nimble, as physical matter. They focus on that.

To them that's the main thing. They take as the main thing, when you're deciding... jok sul means when you're deciding what is it.

When you're establishing it. When you're establishing outer objects, the main thing they want to focus on is that it's matter. Dönmo, physical matter.

Dönmo, sorry. ched ching. Lord Dewai means...

Lord Dewai means, and because it's easier to remember, or it's easier to say, we just call him Dönmo. We call him Dönmo. It's cool.

So I found you a really nice... You can have weak footnotes, or you can have strong footnotes. Strong footnotes take some time to find it.

This guy's saying, why are they called Dönmos? Because it's easier to remember. It's convenient.

[Speaker 2]
Lord Dewai.

[Speaker 1]
Pleasant to the mind. Dewai grammar case. It's easier.

It just rolls off the tongue. Let's call them Dönmo. Object talkers.

But what it means is people who look at outer objects and focus on the idea that they are physical matter. But why call them people who focus on outer objects and focus on the idea that they are physical matter? Let's make it easy.

Let's call them Dönmo. Objectists. Objectists.

I think it'd be so cool to make it... Objectists.

[Speaker 2]
Objectists.

[Speaker 1]
Would you search for it and find it? Yeah, that's a good question. I would search for Dönmashe.

Or Dönmaweshe. Or Dönmasere. That's a cheap way to get a good hit.

Use the word. They call them that. They call them that.

You just have to know that Dönma might be Dönmawa. Or you won't find it. It took me a while.

This is a perfect one. Somebody's giving a dzikshe. What's a dzikshe?

Or they're explaining why they're called Dönmas. It's precisely why. Now, he doesn't stop there.

He nails it down. Who is this? It's got to be Janyashepo.

Oh, Koincho Dönbe Dönme. Who gave us some nice sexy commentary on the last verse of the Diamond Cutter. I used him a lot at Diamond Mountain.

He had a lot of cogent comments about the last verse. Okay, keep going. You already did that.

I'm sorry. Dhamma nyi gyi jok sul. When they get around to establishing what it is to the two truths, apparent truth and ultimate truth.

Or you could say, what do they call that? Susceptibility and ultimate reality. When they get down to describing that, they say something like a coffee cup.

Chong means to destroy. Sik means to disassemble. Deconstruct.

So this word here is deconstruct. It's a tense of dzik, right? I'm sorry?

It's related to dzik, right? Exactly. Charye.

It is a thing which can be deconstructed. And by the way, this is ultimate reality in the detailed system. You cannot deconstruct it further.

You cannot break it down further. Once you hit an atom, that's ultimate reality. Guess who else believes that?

[Speaker 2]
Science.

[Speaker 1]
Science barely makes it as the worst part of the lowest school of Buddhism.

[Speaker 2]
Not for the last hundred years. They don't think that. Not for the last hundred years.

They may be better. They don't think that.

[Speaker 1]
Well, they have the atomic theory. Anyway, Chong Sik Gyai, Rinpoche's son. Then you hit dul-chen.

Then you hit atoms. Spreadable atoms. Spread out the two truths.

How?

[Speaker 2]
Ultimate reality.

[Speaker 1]
What's deceptive reality in the lowest school?

[Speaker 2]
Stuff that's made of the atoms.

[Speaker 1]
Stuff that's deconstructible. And then when you hit ultimate reality, dul-chen.

[Speaker 2]
Unspeakable atoms.

[Speaker 1]
Got it? It's kind of cool. And by the way, they say deconstructible mind.

Is it mentally deconstructible? Can you imagine? You see?

They see a scientist sitting in an armchair with his eyes closed and saying, OK, I can get down to atoms. That's it. I can't go below that.

OK? For them, that's ultimate reality. Atoms.

And deceptive reality is deconstructible stuff. OK, got it? Cool?

I think it's cool. I don't care. I'm over my sickness.

I'm so bright and true. You guys are just getting sick. dul-chen dakpar, de-lai che-tsul me-pa.

Meaning, you cannot do that to atoms. What? Yeah, you can't deconstruct that.

Who believes that? Chidamawas. The detailist explained it that way.

Now, I like it because he goes on to give the difference between the mind-only school and the chidamawas, which is exactly what you want right now. The samsarpas, on the other hand, chi-dun-dre-mo-gak. Gak.

Gok. Gak.

[Speaker 2]
They deny outer objects.

[Speaker 1]
They deny that outer objects could be physical matter. They deny an outer object which could be physical matter. And in so doing, they emphasize, sol-che, the way they establish things is they focus on the mind.

[Speaker 2]
The mind.

[Speaker 1]
Got it?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, he kind of skipped do-de-pa. He kind of skipped do-de-pa.

[Speaker 1]
He did skip do-de-pa. He did skip do-de-pa. But in this case, they're being thrown in with the chidamawas.

Are they being lumped? They can't be much different.

[Speaker 2]
They can't be different.

[Speaker 1]
But they're still called objectizers. Objectists. Okay, got it?

I wouldn't say objectify, to me that's a different thing. Okay? The name is supposed to be short and sweet and inscrutable.

So keep it that way. Yeah, keep it that way and have a footnote. But don't mess up your text with some long explanation of what it is.

He didn't say that. He did not give this footnote. You're giving this footnote.

Don't put it in his mouth. Okay. Alright.

Back to the book. The two object schools. Now you know what it means.

The two object schools. Lumpa-lang. Lumpa-lang.

Lumpa-shinja-pitta. By the way, this couldn't have been possessive before the quotation mark. It had to be Lumpa-o.

Lumpa-o means quote blue. When you add the o, it makes it an utterance. Blue, with quotation mark.

Blue. When they believe that when you call blue something blue, gyur jay rang dol ta yinpe, the thing you're giving the word dra, right? The thing, object of the word, gyur jah, what you're expressing, as opposed to gyur jay.

What's the gyur jay? Blue. The sound blue is the expressor.

The thing being expressed is blueness, right? Rang dok. That thing in and of itself, rang dok, considered in and of itself, it's dok tak, dok pey tak tam.

[Speaker 2]
It's merely labeled.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Who believes that? The two lower schools.

The two dunmawas. In and of itself, blue, as a chitin. As a archetype.

It's talking archetype. You see, the thing that got the name, the archetype, well, that to them is, they use the same language as Haya Madhyamika, dok pey tak tam. Just projected.

Just projected. And that's why they say the archetype is takpa or mitakpa?

[Speaker 2]
Takpa.

[Speaker 1]
Takpa. Unchanging. Cannot change.

When I say cup, what comes in your mind is cup as your mom taught you cup. And it never changes. This cup is the wrong color.

Why? Well, in the end, it's because your mom had a blue one. And you have this permanent, unchanging.

Okay, got it? This is very interesting here. They're using a higher middle way word to describe how the lower two schools believe.

Rang dok, in and of itself. Blueness. Blueness.

The concept of blueness to which you give the word blue. Tak yin pey. Therefore, they would say about blueness, rang gi tsen gyi ma grub.

[Speaker 2]
It does not exist by nature.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it doesn't exist by nature. By its own definition. Who says that?

The lower two schools. Now normally that's just a higher middle way idea. Something doesn't exist in and of itself, by nature.

But they're saying the lower two schools have a... They also say, they use the words projected, they use the word doesn't exist by definition, but it means a totally different thing for them. It means it is a construct of the mind, something like that.

But, okay, now we're going to complain about their idea. Duh, they believe it. They believe it, but, lungpo lungpo shek pa'i da'i jung shiway nang gi tsen gyi dupa dupa But they also believe that blueness is what you should call blue by definition.

Blue should have been called blue. As the object that is named with the sound blue, that relationship is set in stone. It must have been called blue.

You cannot call Neil Young screaming unity.

[Speaker 2]
What is the blue that gets called blue or the fact that it should be called blue?

[Speaker 1]
The fact that blue is what we should call blue is for them inviolable. It must have been. It must have been.

It had to have been. By definition. So it's interesting, look, look, look.

They don't accept this existence by definition. They do accept this existence by definition. It's very interesting.

Duh pay. Therefore, now his conclusion that he's drawing, and you can spend two days on this sentence. It's a hard sentence.

You have a hard text, I'm sorry. Nangrikpa?

[Speaker 2]
Conceptualist?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, mentalist. Here, look up here he spelled it wrong or the carbon. And down here he spelled it right.

Mindawa.

[Speaker 2]
Different?

[Speaker 1]
Therefore, their beliefs are Mindawa. Completely different from the Maitreya school. Mindawa, Khyapa, Cheo.

Huge difference. There's a huge difference between these two schools. Therefore, there's a huge difference between these two schools.

Very sexy. Wait a minute.

[Speaker 2]
So what's the Oh, what's the difference?

[Speaker 1]
It's here. It's here. The lower two schools say that blue had to have been what we call blue.

No, the Mindawa says that's a gatha. Okay, got it? So huge difference between the two schools.

Got it?

[Speaker 2]
There is a blue atom and something like this?

[Speaker 1]
No, just that you know, could we have called this watermelon?

[Speaker 2]
According to which school?

[Speaker 1]
We see in the Mindawa school, no problem. Names are fluid and therefore and it makes for less friction, less conflict. You see what I mean?

I accept that what you call good may not be what I call good and I don't mind if you don't play Neil Young on the radio today. You see what I mean? That's a more enlightened school.

The lower school is like, no, no, no. Neil Young is number one. I don't care.

It has to have the name that I give it. Okay, got it? It's nice.

Okay, your footnote is going to start from there. You're going to give me a footnote and a correct bibliography entry. Not very difficult.

Just make it look exactly like one again. The only problem I can anticipate is where you guys put your dashes and what you capitalize. That's going to take some training.

There's rules. I'm not... What I say about my system is it's coherent and it's consistent.

You cannot agree with it but I'll do the same thing every time. Okay? That's the first goal of a system that most scholars never, ever reach.

Ever. I can give you... Give me any doctoral thesis about Tibetan written in this country in the last 50 years and every single page will have a hundred inconsistencies.

Have a system first. Then we can fight about the system. But follow your own system.

Nobody even does that. Nobody that I've ever seen. This school is superior.

Okay. Go ahead.

[Speaker 2]
de nyi kyi khyepar lar dope Sorry, lar. de nyi kyi khyepar lar dope war These are the problems that I noticed.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? I sure wish we had a decent Tibetan in this text. It's very frustrating.

[Speaker 2]
It's been lar from lar dope.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, good. Exactly. Exactly.

de nyi kyi khyepar Give it to me. The details of these two. This here, khyepar, means difference.

Because we just said khyepar shintu cho. Huge difference. Let's take that difference between these two.

What's the two involved?

[Speaker 2]
The mentalist and the objectist.

[Speaker 1]
Good. The mentalist and the objectist. The mentalist and the objectist.

Right. Let me say it again for you in a way which you can easily understand. Ko dewa is an idiom.

Ko dewa. The first G has to be with your eyebrows.

[Speaker 2]
Ko dewa.

[Speaker 1]
Don't say go dewa. Go dewa means the door was built well. Ko dewa means...

Let me put it more simple for you. Let me make it more easy to understand. This is adverbial.

Let me express this to you easily, understandably. Go dewa. It's a very common ko dewa.

Sometimes I say go dewa. Let me make it easier on you. Now he's going to put it into a tengyur.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
He's going to go to the base format. What do you call it? Dialectic format.

Aristotle. Go. Is he going up or down?

Does he believe it or not?

[Speaker 2]
He believes. He's telling it to his teacher.

[Speaker 1]
He believes it. There is a hell of a difference between these two schools.

[Speaker 2]
Which is three schools.

[Speaker 1]
But there's a difference of a huge... Dutsul means the position they take. Kepar, big difference.

Dewata, there's a huge difference between these two. Between who? The mentalists and the dhimmas.

So the two here means these two groups. The mentalists and the objectists. I'm sorry, let me think about this.

[Speaker 2]
Oh yeah, these two. That would make sense.

[Speaker 1]
No, I would read the denyi with the dhimma. It's like dum-ka, right? The mentalists and the two objectist groups.

There is a huge difference in their position they take, dutsul, in the position they take on this point. What's this point? Does blue have to be called blue?

[Speaker 2]
Ranggitseniki-drupa.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Go ahead. I'm going to cut it here just to make it...

[Speaker 2]
tam dir suk sok rang dzin tope shen shir ranggitseniki-drupa dupa ni tope shen shir rang tok sa na yi je hi.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Nam rikpay kap dir.

[Speaker 2]
In the context.

[Speaker 1]
Good. I'm happy how you guys have learned context. Here in the context of the mentalists, suk sok, visible form, etc.

Now, you got to get this thing yi utpara case here. The fact that, or when visible form, etc. acts as the object of the belief, of the idea holding to it, meaning implying Ramanya, is what it thinks it sees.

What it thinks it sees. shen shir It doesn't exist that way, ranggitseniki-drupa. It doesn't have to be automatic.

For example, when the kunshi takes the blue as being an outer object, that didn't have to be that way. That's not natural. It's the influence of the two bad seeds.

It didn't have to be, by definition, what it thinks it sees. A blue which is outer, for example. Or a blue which is called blue, had to be called blue.

mandrukpa drupa ni tope shen shir ranggitseniki-drupa. This is not talking about what the belief believes. The thing that the belief believes.

rang do Here you've got a difference between rang do and shin do. rang do and shin do. One is going to be tsen, rang tsen, more like rang tsen, and one's going to be more like jitsen.

rang do, in and of itself, blueness. shin do, a specific example of it. I'm going to read it that way, see if it works.

rang do, blueness. shin do, this blue. This shin means an example.

Yeah, rang do is more like blueness. And shin do is this blue right here, sunlight on the path to freedom. I'm calling this, this is, what do you call it?

Provisional. When I give you a sentence and it works, I'll decide on it. But this blue right here, I'm calling shin do.

An example of blue. And then rang do is blueness. Because to the dun manis it was important.

To the dun manis it was important. Are you talking rang do or shin do? You can think of it as jitsen and rang tsen.

Jitsen, the archetype. Rang tsen, an actual occurrence. An example of it.

Got it? They're both dopas, by the way. Opposites of opposites.

Results of a double reverse. Probably a, what do you call it? Touchdown.

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Shin do.

[Speaker 1]
bak chak ten chung gi wang she na suk sok tan chuk la Yeah, that's it. Ten chung, I had trouble with this in your text. I wanted it to be an E.

Because ten without the E is not that common. Nathan. Elder.

Ten without the E is solid. But as I go through your text, he seems to be saying, he seems to be describing a bak chak which is endemic.

[Speaker 2]
To the human condition.

[Speaker 1]
Some kind of built-in bak chak. Very, like, what do you call it?

[Speaker 2]
It's almost innate, right?

[Speaker 1]
It's almost definite. It's almost like that. It means super stable.

Like built into your awareness. Bak chak ten chung gi wang she na to that awareness of blue. Now you've got she.

This is not the wang. This is not the wangpo by itself. This is the awareness of seeing.

la suk sok gi tan ye The thing that gets the name visible form. The thing which gets the name, the thing which receives the name visible form. nangway nang sok tar gyi, dön la, dön chi They believe that it exists the way it appears.

We'll do it again next time. We'll just get the pieces right. nang sok tar, as it appears to be, dön la, this dön la, is an idiom.

It means, in reality, it is. Dön la means in reality. I'm going to take it that way here.

They believe in it. But for it to exist in the way it seems to exist, that does not exist by definition. It exists.

Whereas the lower schools would say it does.

[Speaker 2]
It does not exist by definition.

[Speaker 1]
It doesn't exist by definition in the way it appears to exist. Then he's going to contrast that to what the sutras say. So when we get this sentence, this sentence will be a little more comfortable.

They're not like the sutras who believe blah, blah. Then we can take the opposite out and say, that's what the minority believes. So sometimes you have to go, sometimes you have to parachute behind enemy lines to fight the sentence before.

[Speaker 2]
Or jump in your time machine to the future.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. Sometimes you have to overrun the enemy to see what the heck the front line was about. That's a translation principle.

Go ahead. Thank you, Vishnu. Thank you.

I feel like I dodged a bullet. I better read this again a couple of times.