Медитации на пустоту: объяснение шагов к пониманию того, что ничто не является самим собой, занятие 21

[Speaker 2]
Okay, Utpal, can you give us a recession? Utpal, can you give us a recession? Utpal, can you give us a recession?

[Speaker 1]
Show me something.

[Speaker 2]
I'm going to make a phone call, you guys can listen.

[Speaker 1]
It's relevant to you.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
So you should put some accent down, Utpal. That's cute. That's cute, I'm doing a relationship talk today.

I have a question for you, I'm in the middle of class, but nobody can hear you, okay, don't worry. On the way to Flag, you know there's some pine trees by the side of the road that died from the emissions of the cars? They're all brown, and then the trees behind them are all green.

Have you ever seen that? Can you pull over safely and take a photo of one of those for me? Today, on your way to Flag?

Doesn't matter, anytime before like 9 o'clock tonight. All right, that's all. Okay, gracias.

Okay, bye. Yeah, me too. Now, tell me why.

Me too what? Try to deduct what I just said. I'm going to use this as an example in one of your talks.

When you drive to Flagstaff, the next city, it's all pine trees, and all the ones near the road are dead. They're all brown. They're big, healthy, beautiful trees, and they're all dead.

[Speaker 2]
It's the exhaust from the cars.

[Speaker 1]
It kills them. The smoke from the cars kills the trees. You can see it.

You don't have to understand cars. You can see that it kills the trees next to the road. That's why we're not going to build a gas station next to the freeway.

Seriously, it's poison next to the freeway. That tree was busy all the time. That means there's a tunnel of exhaust fumes.

Really? Yeah. Mr. Wu's like, let's just build the extra building in front. Well, first of all, it's too noisy, because there's constant cars going by. Secondly, it's actually dangerous. There's much more fumes there.

You can't see it because it's carbon monoxide, but it kills plants near the side of the road.

[Speaker 2]
Particularly from the rubber as well.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, so I thought if I had a photo. Okay, anyway. I'm trying to get that place back there, because that makes income every year that would cover the college cost forever.

And there's no maintenance. Nobody has to do anything. Once in a while somebody says, there's a rattle in my storage tank, and you say, okay, we won't charge you.

[Speaker 2]
No, they make you catch up.

[Speaker 1]
All right. Here's my next postulation, because we just found out we have an extra class. So I'm going to do these ideas I have, and then if we have extra time, Utpala gets extra class for being so nice to let Dr. Wu have her class. Trade, okay. Anyway, let's put all the bibliography entries in one document and somebody updates it each term. We already did that.

And it's extremely helpful. Because normally the Lamas are quoting the same people. So once we get up to 700 bibliography entries, we probably don't have to do many more.

But it also means if one of them is wrong, it's going to be wrong every time somebody uses it.

[Speaker 2]
And then when it gets corrected, we need to let everybody know.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Or you just reissue it every term.

[Speaker 2]
Did you have a chance to check Utpala Will of Life bibliography entries that I sent you back in August, late August?

[Speaker 1]
That book's on hold.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
He did some bibliography entries for me. I gave him a list of catalog numbers, and he did the entries. Okay.

Yeah, that book is, I don't know what happened to that book.

[Speaker 2]
Just say if we get that, that's like 30 or 40 we could throw in there.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. This we already talked about it. When it says second, go back and figure out what it was.

Don't make your reader do it. It's impolite. When it says part two, go figure out what part two was.

In Tibetan scriptures, they don't tell you. Now I'm going to do part two. But it might have been 100 pages ago.

So tell the people. Yeah, now, the nature of a root text, especially one in poetry, like words text, or the Abhidharmakosha, they are meant to be cryptic. ,SNGA PHUN DANG MI BDUN ZHIG ROL, ,DBANG BRJE ZHIG LA GNYIS MA ROL, ,LA DANG RGYAS PA DE DAG LAS, ,KHROD NAS RNAMS SBYONG, ,RNAMS MONGS RNAMS SBYANG LA, ,BDAG LAS RGYAS PA, ,SNGA PHUN DANG MI BDUN ZHIG LA, Five act towards the four.

,SNGA PHUN DANG MI BDUN ZHIG ROL, ,DBANG BRJE ZHIG LA GNYIS MA ROL, And then the four to the two. You see what I mean? And it's supposed to be code word.

And then the Lama's supposed to say, look, I know what it means. And then the student goes, oh, you're so smart. It's meant to be code.

So don't give the punchline before the author gives the punchline. If the author's playing hide and seek, translator is hide and seek. Let him do the revealing.

And if the author is being unnecessarily complex, make it unnecessarily complex. Because you're just a translator. You're not a commentator.

It's like Tsangtang, if you're translating for Daku, he might say weird stuff and then you're supposed to make it weird because that's what he wants. So the translator is supposed to be invisible. And you're just conveying what the teacher wanted you to say.

And maybe you don't like how they said it, or maybe you don't agree with what they said. That's the worst kind of translator is when they're editing what you say. Then you're like, I just said three words and you said 30.

Now something's going on here. Yeah, you get these weird translators who fix everything you say. This guy, you already know, we decided to put in every book a list of divine names and places, like who's Manjushri, what's Gentle Voice, what's a victor, what's a conqueror, what's the Wangan Mas.

So I've added it to a lot of your books already. And that we can make a database also. That we can keep updating.

Then you just keep drawing it from there.

[Speaker 2]
Eventually it could be a volume of the series. It could be like the final crossword.

[Speaker 1]
This is just for personal names, where we decided they were epithets and we translated them. The one that's gone instead of Tathagata.

[Speaker 2]
So you have an entry for Shakyamuni Buddha and then update the epithets that are mentioned for each one?

[Speaker 1]
I'm sure I just did one this morning, or late last night.

[Speaker 2]
This should retain one comment. So this is... Two hundred lumps.

[Speaker 1]
Is that the translation? One lump or two? This is Choney Lama's commentary.

It ended up being, up to term two it was, it's about two hundred pages. Yeah, but look, see, there's the Tibetan books. And then there's the Sanskrit books.

And this I've been putting in everybody's trajectory. And this my Lama asked me to do. Because we had a disagreement.

He said leave it Manjushri, but it has a meaning. Gentle Voice has meaning. And he said, okay, you can put Gentle Voice, but put the Sanskrit somewhere in the book.

Explain it to your readers that you're giving people. And it's a decision. I just did a sutra called Vimaladatta.

The book requested by Vimaladatta. And his name is not an epithet. It's not an important epithet.

It just happened to be his name. So I didn't translate it into English. But something like the Able One or the Conqueror, these are important to me.

But somewhere in the book to honor Rinpoche, I would like to put all the names. And I'm trusting these are correct. I have no way to confirm it.

Where did you get this discussion? Oh, he did it. So if they're wrong, talk to him.

I'll talk to him. It's traditional Chinese. Yeah, anyway.

And what I did was I repeated that list in everybody's book. And then I searched for the English. And if I couldn't find it in your translation, I took it out.

You see what I mean? So everybody should have a list like that in their book. Then it says appendices, right?

It's the first appendix. By the way, I want to add an appendix to your book. I was thinking about it last night while I was sleeping.

The One Day Vow translation. Mahayana One Day Vow. We should put that 50 pages at the end of your book.

[Speaker 2]
I don't have one in my book, but I've got Ratnakara and Orange Budjusri.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, so you guys do your own, okay? Just do your own. And it's kind of just honoring my teacher's request to me.

He said, we had basically a disagreement about it. And I said, you can't say, you know, just rinpoche, you can't say, you know, like, bhaja-dhara-ratnakara-bhaya-bhaya, ekapada-rasa, you know? It's too much.

It could confuse people. And it has meaning. Gentle voice has meaning.

There whispers emptiness in your ear. Softly. Softly whispering in your ear.

Anyway, that's my suggestion.

[Speaker 2]
Can you scroll just a little bit? Names and places, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, because I added some heaven names also, like Sukhavati and things like that. Proper names. Okay.

Yeah, now Seiji, your book was typeset on a computer from a carding. And it confused me for a while, then I figured it out. So it's got page numbers and folio numbers.

Because the people who typed it in were smart enough to add the folio pages. Which means if you have the carding, you can check whether it's correct or not. And you don't have to search around the whole book.

It gives you the folio. But they didn't do all of them. It goes like 8B, 8A, 8B, 9A, 9B, 10B.

They skipped some. So it'd be really cool if you could find a card that it was based on. And I believe your book, we haven't found a card yet, I'm not sure.

So anyway, take a shot. Ask Jigme, she can help you. Try to find the carding.

Your book was input from a carding because they recorded the folio numbers. But they didn't do all of them. So it's kind of frustrating.

It's the NA and the BA. What's NA? We use N and DUN.

Yeah, front side and back side. DUN, and it's a weird convention because... Yeah, DUN, the word for front.

Instead of putting F for front, they put T for front. Front. They put the last letter.

And then JAP ends with a B, so they put BA. So NA means front side, D means back side. It's a weird convention.

If someone didn't tell you, you'd never have heard of it. Okay. Okay.

Yeah, you've got to help me with that. There's a stupid footnote line. I can't get rid of it.

We tried for an hour.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, here, just when you have more than one folio, put FF. Okay. If it's a single folio, put F.

Now, some people, 70A to 70B, they'll put 70AB. I don't want to do that. I want to repeat the number.

[Speaker 2]
70A to 70B. It's no space when we're doing the total number of pages in the book.

[Speaker 1]
At the end. When FF's after.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, I see. Okay, thanks.

[Speaker 1]
Every term, someone just Oh, yeah. We're making a repository of bibliography in these notes. We need you.

Right. But it'd be nice to have a repository of footnotes. So you don't have to re-search for the three realms.

[Speaker 2]
I don't know how it's going to work in terms of numbering, because to put them all in one document is going to...

[Speaker 1]
It doesn't matter. It's just going to all be one.

[Speaker 2]
Well, it needs a reference, so we need to have a reference.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, we'll figure it out. We'll cut and paste it without the numbers. And I want to qualify that.

In some cases, I was in a rush, and I would rather do a nicer footnote. So I'm not... It's not like the bibliography entries.

All the bibliography entries are correct, as far as I could make them correct. But the footnotes, there's some I could improve on. But some of them are classics.

[Speaker 2]
How is it helpful in a different way than the compiled document as it exists, as it just went to the printer?

[Speaker 1]
It doesn't really matter. Now that you can see it, it doesn't really matter. I guess that if you just had the footnotes, you wouldn't get hits in the text.

You see what I mean?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, but what are you going to be searching for that you only want to hit footnotes?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, you want to cop my whole footnote, that's what I'm saying.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, to cop your whole footnote on a second topic.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, like the five paths. Why keep rewriting this footnote?

[Speaker 2]
I mean, I'll tell you the answer is because if I'm using the full document, it might not be in a footnote, but actually in the body of your text that the explanation is.

[Speaker 1]
Well, that's true too. That's true too. I'm open to that.

But a footnote is going to be in the third person. But I'll confess something. If there's 300 hits, I'll take the first reasonable one.

Not necessarily the best one. You see what I mean? Because I don't have time to look through 300 hits.

If I find one that's pretty good, I'll take it. But some of the footnotes could be in some of them. We already did this.

I did this for you at the beginning of the class. We were trying to see if people are on track or not to meet their publishing dates. And we're doing pretty good.

Generally, we're doing pretty good. Yeah, don't put the edit levels. Okay, Ann?

We talked about that this morning. And when is that? Oh, yeah.

So what I do, I have a working version and I have a Term 2 version. Term 2 version, I cut out all your untranslated stuff. And then I have to take the Term 2 versions and put in your Term 3 information and hope that you didn't change anything from Terms 1 and 2.

Because my edit of Term 1 and 2 is better than your edit of Term 1 and 2.

[Speaker 2]
You see what I mean?

[Speaker 1]
So there's going to be a little disconnect there. So basically what I do is I create a working document from my final Term 2 and then I add the untranslated stuff. Alright, so that's all I have.

Your text is, you know, you're going slow so let's do extra time on your text.

[Speaker 2]
I have one thing if we could add it. I noticed that last night that some of the page numbers are cut off on our text.

[Speaker 1]
Really?

[Speaker 2]
Why? When a PDF is created from a Word document. So what I noticed is that the font was different.

So just make sure that the font for your page numbers is Palatine.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I tried to fix them all and I think I might have left some. You know, I have to go double click, click, click, click, you know. I did that for you.

Remember. Is that what it was, Jeff? Remember to make a PDF.

[Speaker 2]
That's why.

[Speaker 1]
By the way, Palatino and Linotype, okay, Jimmy? You gave me that document. Which document?

The Diamond Cutter root text. It took me like an hour actually to clean them all up.

[Speaker 2]
I just gave it back the way I got it. Anyway, anyway, there's a way when you open it back and it's going to styles and Yeah, I haven't figured it out.

[Speaker 1]
I was talking about the whole text I had to clean out all the Palatine.

[Speaker 2]
I didn't even notice.

[Speaker 1]
You've got to notice stuff like that. That's the thing. Okay, let's go to your text.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
You get extra time for being nice. Or maybe it's extra suffering.

[Speaker 2]
How can it be suffering when it's about what it is?

[Speaker 1]
I'm so happy to be able to do some diamonds.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Are we here? Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
I want this actual orange juice.

[Speaker 1]
Orange juice.

[Speaker 2]
Where?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, right. We did Denmark already.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, right there.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, let's do that.

[Speaker 2]
You were going to do that one again.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, as a friend you're going to notice that.

[Speaker 2]
Wow.

[Speaker 1]
Let's just go slow through it, okay? We have time. Go ahead.

Oh, you have the plan. I have a plan, sure. Okay.

I think I better go back to this one. Can you read this one? Okay.

Okay, nam rikpay kam dir. By the way, when kam comes before dir, they put an M in between kam dir. And now it's just an anomaly.

[Speaker 2]
Kam dir.

[Speaker 1]
Kam dir.

[Speaker 2]
Kam dir.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it's just weird. Nam rikpay kam dir. Here in the Mind-Only School, suk so rang zing tokpay shen shir, visible forms, etc., when they are apprehended by an idea, shen shir means the shen shir, the thing that they have their belief about. Okay? The thing that they have their belief about. rang gi tsen gyi ma dukpa dukpa ni When they say it doesn't exist by definition, what they mean is they are not just talking about the rang dok of the shen shir.

They're not just talking about the rang dok of the shen shir. Ni che means they're not talking about that. So, let's slow down because I need to also.

If there's a shenpa going on, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Yeah, good. Shenpa means a wrong belief.

There's some kind of wrong belief going on. What are two typical wrong beliefs that could be going on in the Mind-Only School? That it's an outer object?

Yeah, you have an attachment to it as being an outer object. Or you have an attachment to it as having to as having to have been called what it was. So the shenpa is that, for example, is that it's an outer object.

The belief is that the blue which is appearing to it exists as an outer object. What's the locus of that belief? It's the blue.

Okay. What is the belief about? Shen shi.

What's the foundation of the belief? Meaning the object of the belief. What's the thing?

What are we thinking wrong about? It's the blue. So, does something exist in that way from its own side?

And they say no. They say no. But, when we say no, when we say it doesn't exist from its own side, we're not talking about the wang dong of that blue.

[Speaker 2]
yeah. Conceptual expression wang dong. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Let's go to qi cun and rang cun. Qi cun is the archetype. Cup.

Cup with quotation marks. The cup your mother showed you when she taught you the word cup. And then there's the rang cun, which is the expression of the cup.

One expression of cup archetype in the world. A real expression of it. A manifestation of the concept.

The expression of the archetype. So, shin dok and rang dok here are similar terms to qi cun and rang cun. I just have to figure out which is which.

Shin dok. Shin dok might be the one, no, because that would actually make me think that it's the no, this is the same qi from basis, right?

[Speaker 2]
So, it would make sense that that would be the qi.

[Speaker 1]
I forget what this word is. Let's see how they fit. Okay, rang dok.

You have a basis, an expression of the basis.

[Speaker 2]
You said before when we did this that it was, rang dok was the archetype.

[Speaker 1]
I'm going to say rang dok is archetype. Okay, yeah. I'm going to stick with that.

Okay, rang dok is the archetype. So, when we talk about something being the blue that the kun qi mistakes for being an outer object, for example, we're not thinking about the archetype. We're talking about an actual occurrence.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, instead of expression, an actual occurrence.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. And then, bak chak ten kun chen kyi wang she la sum sok gyi thang nyi kham la chuk gyi jik shin no yin yin se tsa gyi den la den ching de shin dok the expression of that. A blue.

Okay, A blue. Then I have trouble with this phrase and I looked for it and I couldn't really get much clarity. Bak chak ten chung.

It would have been more comfortable if it said the R-T-E-N which serves as the basis of the bak chak.

[Speaker 2]
But it's not that.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it seems to be the sense consciousness. Sense consciousness? Belonging to a stable seat.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Coming from a stable seat?

[Speaker 1]
All I can think of, I mean, what I just thought of is maybe when you talk about the sense powers of a human being, they tend to go on for their whole life. You know what I mean? So maybe it means that sustained, result of a sustained opening from seats.

Blue is not. A case of blue is not. Maybe, I'm just guessing.

It's not bak chak ten chung. But the I over your whole life is sustained. It comes from a sustained opening of a seat.

Maybe that. You see what I mean? Maybe.

I don't know. I mean, let's do it provisionally and then let's see if he uses the phrase again. He does.

I checked. Because I thought maybe he had misspelled it, but I don't think he has. It's some kind of mind-only term, which I don't know.

Bak chak ten chung. It has something to do with the firmness of the seat. ten chung kyi wang she la to the sense consciousness now.

Not wangpo. Not the I faculty. Not the I faculty.

But the awareness of what the I faculty sees. su so kyi tha nye When the mind says there's blue there, what is the kangwa jukpay shir? What is it that it's calling blue?

What is the object of the term blue? shir nangway nyeng tso tar kyi dun la du The blue that they're talking about as the basis of the term blue, that's okay. That exists.

The blue that seems to be getting the name blue, there is a blue being called blue, and there's no problem with that. Du It appears to be what I'm calling blue, and it is what I'm calling blue. That's not the problem.

What's the problem? Saying nyil Saying that an occurrence of blue, a shindo, saying that an occurrence of blue is what I'm calling blue, that much is okay. What's the problem?

That it had to be called blue. That I couldn't have called anything else blue. That a rose by any other man would not have been a rose.

Would not have smelled as sweet. Yeah, not a smell was it. So dun la dur jing So they agree that there's a blue which appears to be receiving the name blue.

That part's okay. But what they don't agree is nangwa dhar rang gi tenay kyi mar dupar is that it could exist in and of itself as it appears to, meaning it had to be this thing called blue.

[Speaker 2]
tanay jupay juk shir Oh, they believe that it is not.

[Speaker 1]
So the problem they have is not with blue being called blue. The problem they have is with blue having to have been called blue. Okay.

And that's with reference to the specific blue and not the archetype blue. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Does that one have to be?

[Speaker 1]
No, I'm not going there. No, it's just the one they have to be. Just the one we're talking about.

Okay, here we go. Please read. You have to play.

Yeah, good. So it's a difference between the minority and the sutrists. Third school and second school.

The sutrists say, LUM PO LA GZUGS SO It's called blue. LUM PO LA GZUGS SO When you look at blue and say this is a visible thing, when you look at an occurrence of blue and say this is a visible thing, GZOD CES CHA it's as if a certain part of the blue got called by the term this is visible. CHA Yeah, it's almost as if a part of the blue received the name this is visible.

Okay, got it? I understand the English words, but I don't understand. Let's say it again.

When you see some blue and you say, oh look, here's a visible thing. Then the CHA means quote visible thing. And here's the quote mark right here.

So GZOD CES CHA means the object of an expression. What is called this is a visible thing, which is the blue. When you look at blue and say this is a visible thing, it's as if a part of what you call visible thing, you're applying the word visible thing to a part of the blue.

Okay? Where's the two, the part? The CHA.

A part of what was called visible form. GZOD CHA means what got called. The CHA is the DA, the word.

Here DA means word or expression. What is the word they're talking about?

[Speaker 2]
The term?

[Speaker 1]
SU. This is visible form.

[Speaker 2]
Part of the word instead of part of the object? You see, because part of the name blue is that it's a physical form. So you don't have to say part of the object.

[Speaker 1]
We're going there. So what's the GZOD CHA here? GZOD CHA.

[Speaker 2]
The object of the word.

[Speaker 1]
No, that's GZOD CHA. What's the GZOD CHA? What's the express word?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, it's the I...

[Speaker 1]
No, it's SU. It's the word. So GZOD CHA is what's receiving the name, which is the blue.

And the GZOD CHA is the expression being applied to it is quote visible form. So now they're not talking about the word anymore. They're talking about the thing that the word got applied to, which is the blue.

GZOD CHA is blue. GZOD BYAS is sukso. CHA is sukso.

Got it? You okay? I'll say it again.

[Speaker 2]
The word is...

[Speaker 1]
Oh yeah, B-Y-E-D.

[Speaker 2]
Like E-R.

[Speaker 1]
Like plumber, teacher, talker.

[Speaker 2]
The J too, yeah. No, no, no.

[Speaker 1]
This is the object of the term. This is what's being called something, which is the blue here. And the GZOD BYAS, the term being applied is for, you can call it the sound, which means the term, is this is visible.

So when it says CHA LTA BU, it means almost like a piece. He's like saying, here's blue. And you call it, oh look, that's a visible thing, but you're calling it to this part and not this part.

Something like that. It's almost like there's a piece of what's being seen in the name. And he's expressing...

What do you call it?

[Speaker 2]
He tells you he's being metaphorical.

[Speaker 1]
No, he's expressing disbelief about the idea.

[Speaker 2]
You see what I mean? It's like CHA LTA BU.

[Speaker 1]
It's like this. It's like as if there's a piece of what you're calling this is visible. But it's almost like the front part is being called visible, but not the back part.

CHA LTA BU. Now, does that exist in and of itself?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
They would say yes.

[Speaker 2]
They would say yes?

[Speaker 1]
No, we're talking sutras. We're talking sutras.

[Speaker 2]
I'm sorry, you're correct.

[Speaker 1]
They would say that doesn't exist in and of itself. But the fact that it appears in the way we just described, that does exist in and of itself. Now, the thing we just described is up here, and the Maitreya school said it didn't exist in and of itself.

In that section just before, everybody's lost. And I'm almost lost. But not quite.

[Speaker 2]
So the way it appears exists by definition, but not what it's named doesn't necessarily.

[Speaker 1]
No, but it's easy to understand. In the last section, the mind-only school said when you call blue visible object, it exists as the thing called visible object in and of itself. It's a mistake.

It doesn't exist in and of itself. It could have been called smell. So it's not inherent.

Inherent's not bad here. It's not inherent. Yeah, it's artificial.

Names are artificial. Names are artificial. So they say that artificial, not inherent.

And now he's contrasting the sutras. They would say that for it to exist in the way it appears, meaning as being the thing called visible, is inherent. It had to have been called visible.

It could not have been called a smell. But something else they say isn't inherent. Yeah, yeah.

But they do say that part of the stuff going on here is non-inherent. And for them what's non-inherent is that the it seems to be almost like a part being called what it's called. A part being called what it's called is not inherent.

But for it to appear to be, to have to have been called what it's called, is inherent.

[Speaker 2]
Say that last part again.

[Speaker 1]
The last part. The second half here is the only clear thing to me. The sutras believe that it had to have been called what it's called inherently.

And the mind only says no, it's not. That it should have been what it was called.

[Speaker 2]
So the way it appears.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, here, namsal, the way it appears, is referring to this one. Namoy. Okay.

That it appears, right? It was your third appearance of your three appearances.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
That it should be called what it was called. That's the one being discussed in the first section here. And it's all mind only guys.

GANG LA SBYUG PA'I SBYUGS SHES It appears to be the thing that it's called inherently, but it's not.

[Speaker 2]
So is it the part that is a visible form that they say no, no, we don't go that far. We say it's the blue. That blue has to be called blue.

[Speaker 1]
What is it that the sutras say? What is it that they mock at saying is inherent? What I hope is it's some part of the expression itself.

[Speaker 2]
Not the expressor or the thing that you're talking to, but the expression that somehow gets passed between them. Which would be very doteba because they're into these this idea of mental images that are unchanging and so they don't really exist. So if part of the expression itself which is that's being applied to blue is somehow part of that doesn't really exist.

[Speaker 1]
By the way, do do they believe that archetypes are related to Nikita?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
They're not. Right, that's where they stop. They say that ideas are deceptive.

They're not real. They're not totally real. Only physical matter is totally real in the second school.

So I think there's a clue there. In their school what would not be real or not exist inherently do you?

[Speaker 2]
Ideas.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, ideas. But then chitsans in their school are Ranggitseniki Madrupa. Madrupa.

Archetypes are not reality. They're artificial. They're human constructions.

[Speaker 2]
So something about this is visible, right?

[Speaker 1]
They have a concept which is not a When they say a sutra just said it didn't exist inherently. It must be something to do with archetypes. That's what I'm trying to say.

Maybe there's a clue there. So maybe it's the visible form.

[Speaker 2]
Because this all started with Ranggok and Shindok. Yeah, Ranggok and Shindok.

[Speaker 1]
What would they say the words are when you use words about something? When you say this is a fish. The word fish.

[Speaker 2]
Ranggitseniki Madrupa.

[Speaker 1]
Good, because it's like an archetype.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
I think that's what they're doing. The first half here. I think they're talking about that.

Something to do with expressions. They would say as an expression this is visible. Doesn't exist inherently.

But He's driving home the If you say the archetype had to have been applied to this thing they would say that's inherent. The archetype is not inherent. But the application of the archetype to the object, to the real case of the object is inherent.

I like it. Let's stay there.

[Speaker 2]
I hope I remember it.

[Speaker 1]
Five minutes from now for me. I like it.

[Speaker 2]
Would we say something like specific instance of the archetype?

[Speaker 1]
That's okay.

[Speaker 2]
Using expression in all these different ways can get a little confusing.

[Speaker 1]
You want to say manifestation or something like that. Manifestation of the archetype? You can say instance, that's even better.

It's more elegant. Instance is more elegant.

[Speaker 2]
I think he has to say jat tabu because he said dra, and usually dra is so he's kind of like fudging it because he On the tabu? Yeah, because he said dra, he's kind of fudging it by saying jat tabu because typically dra would be mikapa so he says jat tabu First of all, I checked the scan to make sure it's not say or something like that. I should?

[Speaker 1]
Are you somebody in this room? This title is a disaster. Yeah, you should check your text ahead of time.

That's cool. You know what comes to my mind when I read this sentence is I just got finished teaching waterfall downstairs. And it's just one glass of liquid in the middle of the table and three people are sitting around.

And that author, K.R.I.T.T.A Medagye, he was playing with the idea of this percentage which faces you. You see it as amrta and they see it as water and they see it as blood. And he wants to say the object has three faces and each guy is seeing their own the part that appears to them.

He wants to split it into three parts or something like that. Somehow I have a feeling this is similar. I'm not sure.

And I think we've got to sit with this for a while. I don't understand it completely. Let's see if the next thing helps or hurts.

And I did not have time, because I was finishing the translations, I didn't have time to sit and work on this.

[Speaker 2]
Which would have helped.

[Speaker 1]
Let's divide and conquer.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
So please read.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, this is hard.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I'm not sad if I can go sit with it for a while. DE'I RGYUD TSE YANG YOD TE There's a reason why the thing given the name inherently should have that name, should be the thing given that name. Because that was the last thing we said.

They believe that the thing had to be called what it was called inherently. And there's a reason why they say that. Here's a reason why they say that.

The sutras say, so, now there's an idiom for you, okay? DON PHAN It's an idiom. DON PHAN It means, it means correct.

It means miluwa. It means, DON PHAN means what it thinks it sees is what it sees. That's literally what it means.

It's a very tricky idiom. DON PHAN So, DBANG PHRAD DON PHAN means a sense, awareness, which is correct about what it sees.

[Speaker 2]
Correct in terms of its, what, existence?

[Speaker 1]
It thinks it sees blue and it does see blue. That's called DON PHAN. Squeezing your eyeball and looking at the moon and seeing two moons is not DON PHAN.

It's not a DBANG PHRAD DON PHAN.

[Speaker 2]
It's a DON PHAN.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it's a DON PHAN. So DON PHAN means what it thinks it sees is what it sees. Just a way to say correct.

It's a correct, accurate, okay? It's, it jives with the object.

[Speaker 2]
See what I mean?

[Speaker 1]
That's what it means. I'm sure you're going to say object jiving. Jive is an English word that fits.

Jive? J-I-V-E. Jive.

Someone tells you something about there was a fire next door. There's a fire next door. You went and looked at it.

You saw all this stuff going on. And then when you came home, somebody said that was lit by the other guy. And you said that jives with what I saw.

That fits what I saw. J-I-V-E. J-I-V-E.

[Speaker 2]
I speak jive. That's a different thing.

[Speaker 1]
Jive means a bullshit tongue. Yeah. That's a different meaning.

Okay. Anyway. Oh, it also means it's right to jive.

So char-wa.

[Speaker 2]
Char-wa.

[Speaker 1]
It's nangwa.

[Speaker 2]
To make it its appearance. To make it its appearance.

[Speaker 1]
Char-wa. To the mind. What's the present tense?

Char-wa.

[Speaker 2]
Apostrophe char.

[Speaker 1]
Now, ne-tsu. Ne-tsu is an idiom. Ne-tsu is an idiom.

Ne-tsu. By the nature of the thing. By the nature of the thing.

Ne-tsu. It means the measure of the place.

[Speaker 2]
It means the measure of the place.

[Speaker 1]
Like tse-ma. But it means by the nature of the thing. Ngo-po-ri-wang-ki, for example.

Ngo-po-ri-wang-ki. Ngo-po-ri-wang-ki. Ne-tsu-ki.

By its nature. By the nature of the thing. It's appearing.

It's kind of like nang-gi.

[Speaker 2]
Because by the nature of the thing, it's appearing. Explicitly. Char-wa, char-wa.

[Speaker 1]
For it to appear the way it's doing is the nature of it. We'll talk more about it. We'll go back.

[Speaker 2]
For ngo-po, is that any existing thing? Ngo-po, or?

[Speaker 1]
Ne-tsu can apply to dakmas.

[Speaker 2]
No, I mean right there, ngo-po.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, it's the nature of the thing.

[Speaker 2]
Of the thing.

[Speaker 1]
So like, appearing things naturally arise in the way that they appear. This is exactly the same as the expression mu-tob-ki. Mu-tob-ki.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, by its own power. The power of the object.

[Speaker 1]
It's a kind of jipok. It's one of the three jipoks.

[Speaker 2]
It means like the nature of fire is small. Mu-tob.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, we have this. The nature of fire, ngo-po'i tok-ki, it implies smoke.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. So the nature of an arising thing or an appearing thing is for it to appear as what it is. For them.

[Speaker 1]
I think they might say it's the nature of a thing to appear correctly as having to have been called what it is. But where is that? Because you see, dey-tar shar-wa, dey-tar shar-wa means to appear like that, which goes back to this nangwa, which goes back to shema-ta.

This nangwa. juk-shir juk-shir ngo-i. You see what I mean?

Because here he's saying the appearances that we just talked about for the Maitreya School. And here he says that appearing that we just talked about. See, they're referring back.

So the point of this last sentence is according to the sutra school, if the eye power, if the eye consciousness sees something and it's not crazy, dun-dun, then what it sees and it calls this is visible, should have been called visible by definition. But the mind only says no. Now, is there anything that the sutra school is not happening by definition?

Yeah, there's something that they say isn't happening by definition. And that's here. Well, I think they would say the term itself is artificial.

That's not in here. As an architect. As an architect.

That's not inherent. Yeah, coffee cup is not inherent. But the use of coffee cup for this object is inherent.

Yeah, they actually have a discussion like that. They get into that.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Alright. I feel better about it. It's less unclear than it was before.

[Speaker 2]
I did notice I didn't say cleared. Thank you, Geshe-la. That was awesome.

[Speaker 1]
I hope it gets easier.

[Speaker 2]
Chanting Chanting Chanting Chanting Chanting Chanting Chanting Chanting Chanting Chanting