Медитации на пустоту: объяснение шагов к пониманию того, что ничто не является самим собой, занятие 24

[Speaker 1]
Master Asanga, do you want to read it for us, Venerable? Sure. So Master Asanga comes to our rescue to provide some clarity about what the heck Minoli is thinking.

I don't see what the heck in there.

[Speaker 2]
It's there. It's implied. It's a special room.

To provide clarity on the Minolis, one part of the Minoli school's idea of the lack of self, the things. So what's the name of Asanga's text? We covered like two paragraphs, though.

Sorry, guys.

[Speaker 1]
All right.

[Speaker 2]
There are too many questions I could ask.

[Speaker 1]
We didn't name the real name of it in Sanskrit. It's called Asanga. I'm sure they can figure it out.

Oh, the name of it in Sanskrit? No, I don't know Sanskrit. I don't know Sanskrit.

[Speaker 2]
You don't do Sanskrit? What's the question again? What is the name of Asanga?

I'm sorry. Did you mean Dharma?

[Speaker 1]
What's it called in Sanskrit?

[Speaker 2]
In Sanskrit.

[Speaker 1]
In your question. In your question. I'll get it for you.

[Speaker 2]
I think the Sanskrit's in your question, but you don't do Sanskrit. Mahayana Sangraha. Yeah.

Mahayana Sangraha. Can you dig it?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, there you go.

[Speaker 2]
Can you dig it? Dig it. Can you dig it?

Well, you've got a 50-50 chance, folks. What was the question?

[Speaker 1]
Got it. What was the question? Which part of a lack of self to things is being proved?

When? The label?

[Speaker 2]
What do you mean when? In Master Asanga's text, we came to our rescue to provide time for self to things. I think it's the lack of the self to things.

No, which part of a lack of the self to things is being proved?

[Speaker 1]
At this point? Oh, no question. That's easy.

There were three reasonings, right? Come on, what's the three reasonings? The thing is not self.

What exists by definition? Oh, what is it in the end? No, what exists by definition?

The term. Oh, the name. The term.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, the fact that it applies.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Duh. I knew that.

Okay. Once you get that clear, then all you have to deal with is outer objects, which he does next. Right.

And then you can just start talking about bhakti. Oh, because of the three ways, those are the two that don't, that are not correct.

[Speaker 2]
He's going to give us three reasons for why the second one first, and then you go on to... That's the same, but that's not quite what this is.

[Speaker 1]
What is the reason you realize not the face, but the pot belly? His name, the face. The pot belly guy.

[Speaker 2]
That pot belly. What is the reason?

[Speaker 1]
Because you have to have a term to... Yeah, it seems like it's very circular. They can't apply.

[Speaker 2]
Give him a clue from Mahayana Sangha.

[Speaker 1]
Give him the first line of Mahayana Sangha. Because anyway, they won't figure it out.

[Speaker 2]
I know someone who knows it.

[Speaker 1]
They won't figure it out anyway.

[Speaker 2]
Can you put the first line in front of me?

[Speaker 1]
They wouldn't figure it out anyway. That's something to do with... I'll give you that.

Yeah, Lome. It says, nin ki naro no me chi.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Nin ki naro no me chi. The name cannot exist without the object.

Yeah, you can't have the name. Oh, that's right. And they can't simultaneously happen.

[Speaker 1]
It's the opposite of this. You can't have the name. That's what I heard.

I'm sorry. I didn't know how you teach this group. Unruly cats.

[Speaker 2]
Hey, come on. We're your friends, too, you know. They're exploring.

[Speaker 1]
Let's... Gibson, can you say it louder?

[Speaker 2]
There's no word before the like. Before the... Oh, before the like.

There's no word to be the thing...

[Speaker 1]
Before you called it, your mind couldn't bring the word? No, either way around.

[Speaker 2]
There's no thing out there that can be a vase before your mind calls it a vase.

[Speaker 1]
Call the vase, call the vase.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, there can be no thing out there called vase before your mind calls it vase. Because there's no safe mind that thinks this is that before you've called it a vase.

[Speaker 1]
Right. Can they happen simultaneously?

[Speaker 2]
Temporarily. Temporarily. Or deleted.

Right. Right.

[Speaker 1]
The thought to call it a vase wouldn't depend on the word.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
And just when you're glancing at the vase, the thought, vase will come to you, before you apply the name to it. That's what they say. My next question.

[Speaker 2]
The plane has crashed. Aww.

[Speaker 1]
It's not the black box. Again, can you take the plane? When it says lo me, there's no mind.

Here's the sentence. Kyu la bum ba o she min ma ta pe. Oh, you want me to put it up here?

Yes, please. Min ma ta pe nga ko ru me, right? Instead of nga ru me.

There's nothing suitable.

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
Before you apply the word vase, there is no... Before you apply the word, there is no thought that this is a vase. Okay?

Therefore, the word is not self-existent. Okay? Before you apply the word vase to the potbelly, there is no state of mind which thinks vase.

Okay? Alright, we got new input. Yay!

Oh, is this vase on now?

[Speaker 2]
New errors. I mean, it's much better. All different errors.

[Speaker 1]
Whose text is that? Your text is terrible. It gets me.

Every other word was missing. We did re-input mine. Yeah.

But it's from someone's typing. No, it's not. Anyway, I collated the errors together.

Aww. You don't have too many notes on this one. You could...

Adam, you got the plain text correct.

[Speaker 2]
Sangye Chudang Sakhi Choknam La Jangchu Bardu Dagni Khyap Suchi Dakhi Chunyen Gyipe Sunam Ki Drolapin Chir Sangye Drupar Shok Sangye Chudang Sakhi Choknam La Jangchu Bardu Dagni Khyap Suchi Dakhi Chunyen Gyipe Sunam Ki Drolapin Chir Sangye Drupar Shok Sangye Chudang Sakhi Choknam La Jangchu Bardu Dagni Khyap Suchi Dakhi Chunyen Gyipe Sunam Ki Drolapin Chir Sangye Drupar Shok

[Speaker 1]
You have the plain place correct. Yes, sir.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Pardon me. Wang Kim Jukpa Tha Dung De Jukpa Tha Dungpa Tha Dun De Mi De Tak Jukpe Juk Si Ranggit Sen Kim Jukpe Chit Okay, good.

[Speaker 1]
I just, you know, I feel a little uncomfortable with the last one. And I just want to make sure we got it. Because it's going to...

Your whole understanding of the mind-only school forever depends on that. So, it said, there couldn't... Okay, I just want to go through that one again.

Just so it's in your head. Okay, the first reasoning. Three reasonings why things can't be called what they're called automatically.

First one. This first one, I mean, it boils down to his last sentence. There's a lot of sentences before that.

It just boils down to this. And this is the gloss of Asanga. ,GYUR LA BUM PO SHES MING MA BTAB PA'I KHO BA'I ME, Before you apply the name vase to the thing, okay, there isn't any state of mind that says, this is a vase.

Okay, that's all. If the name were in the thing, then before you give the name, before the mind gives the name, the name would be there. So, it must be coming from the mind, right?

And it doesn't exist in and of itself in the object. If roses were always called roses, then they would announce themselves as roses before you thought roses. Okay, got that one?

Okay, that's probably the hardest one. This gets easier. RIG PA NI PA NI Now, here's the second reason.

And you know, if you're teaching mind only, and you get to that difficult idea, and it's one of the six flavors, ,THA NI RGYUD PA'I RGYUD ZHIG RANG GI TSE NI GYI MA RGYUD PA'I, ,THA NI RGYUD PA'I RGYUD ZHIG RANG GI TSE NI GYI RGYUD PA'I RTO, Yeah, okay.

[Speaker 2]
Right, deserving recognition.

[Speaker 1]
,SKYE BU GCIG LA, If you have a single person, okay, and you call them by different names, ,MING MIN BRAL BA DU MA, Okay, Dharmas. If you apply many different names to the same person. And he takes the case of a worldly god.

And I made myself a note, this is not Wangchuk, it's Wangbo. So Wangchuk would be Ishvara, but Wangbo is Indra. Because I get them messed up.

And in Gyalgen, for many years, I translated it as a hundred gifts. But this Jin is not the Jin that means gift. It's the Jin in Sun Jinba.

Which means to destroy. So he destroyed a hundred cities. So he was called Shep Krah.

And then it became Shep Krah. So the Shep, the Shaman's a hundred Shep, came into Kentu, and then came into Century. Shep came to Kentu, and Kent came to Century.

Around the time of Shakespeare, the Kaa changed to Sa. Kentum in Latin. Miktong Chen means the guy with a thousand eyes.

So, remember this chakra is called Smokes, that's what you call it. Smokes, yeah, okay. So, SA HA SA HA means thousand.

Aksha means eye. Again, it's the German, Auger. Or ocular in English.

Okay, so anyway, if you give one dude three different names, and if those names apply by definition, then there should be three dudes, I think. DE DAG KHYAD BU DE LA DNGOS PO DBANG PO'I CHUG PA THA'O Then, here's DNGOS PO DBANG KHYAD. We had it in the DNGOS PO THOB ZHUGS KYIS BYAS PA DNGOS PO THOB ZHUGS KYIS BYAS PA DNGOS PO'I THOB ZHUGS KYIS By the nature of the thing.

And I was explaining it to V. We were having coffee together. Just tell me what's going on.

He said, well, there's this thing called DNGOS PO DBANG We live on the rim. We live on the top of this mountain. And often times I see smoke out in the wilderness.

And I call the police. And I'm the lookout. And it's happened like three or four times.

And I can see it first. And it's going to burn our house first. So I'm very proactive about it.

And I said, when you see smoke, then DNGOS PO THOB ZHUGS KYIS By the nature of the thing. It means there must have been a fire there. This is the same kind of idea.

DNGOS PO DBANG ZHUGS KYIS By the power of the thing. ZHUGS PA THOB Are you telling me, when you give those names, those names apply to that person by their nature. They had to be called chakra or gut.

Are you telling me that?

[Speaker 2]
Say again? Are you saying plural there or singular?

[Speaker 1]
Well, he said names. NING DE DAG Those names must apply to that guy. Those names must apply to that guy by the nature of the name.

Nobody else could be called chakra. NING PA THOB Why do you say that? Why do you say they have to apply to him by the power of the thing?

DON DE MING DE DAG ZHUGS PA'I ZHUGS SHING RANG GI MTSAN NYID DU DE'I PHYIR DON DE means those guys, that object, that guy. That guy is what the name applies to. He exists as what the name applies to by definition.

Now it gets easier. Probably this is the only logic of the three that you will remember in the future. If you say yes, they had to apply by nature, by the nature of the thing.

That guy had to be called by his nature in the way that smoke is considered by nature the result of fire. DUR NA MING DU MA YIN PA LTAR In the same way that there are multiple names, then there should be multiple things named. In the same way that there are multiple names, then there should be multiple objects of the names.

In which case there would be three different guys. But it's all three different names for the same guy. So if the name applied automatically, then by the power of the guy being named, then for three different names there should be three different guys.

DUG ZHIG DON YANG DU MA YIN PA THALO So there must be multiple objects to which the name is applied. Got it? Please read.

By the way, is this correct? That's okay.

[Speaker 2]
I'll go for it. Good.

[Speaker 1]
From this kind of observed statement, from this kind of observed consequence, DE LTAR THAL BA LAS, we can learn. We learn something. We get a conclusion.

And then he goes on to the third logic, SRID DREG PA GSUM PA We learn that one object of the name does not become multiple. Because... I'm sorry.

The names do not apply to many things. I'm sorry. DUN GCIG SNYING DU MED Many names do not apply to a single object by definition.

Because if it did... Oh, I'm sorry. Because the one guy doesn't become three.

Therefore the names don't apply to him by definition. Because if they did, he would become multiple. And he doesn't.

That's all. They're just wrapping it up. I'll say it again.

From this observed statement, we get a conclusion. What's the conclusion? We decide that a single object cannot be the thing named with multiple names by definition.

Because that single object doesn't become many objects. Okay? That's all.

So the second one is easy. Probably the one you'll remember when you teach it in the next Lamrim retreat. Right?

[Speaker 2]
Well, someone would just come back, you know, like Billy Bob Thornton or something like that.

[Speaker 1]
Someone who's got three names. Yeah. Okay, go.

You've got the plane. I've got the aeroplane.

[Speaker 2]
KYE BU MIN GYUR LA MI MA CHA SHI ZHE MIN GYUR LA GCIG DAG PAS SEM YIN TE DUN DE MI MA TE She cheated it. MU WANG YIN ZHUG PAR THAM DON MIN DRA WA ZHUG PAR THAM DON MIN DRA WA MI WO TE MIN GCIG PO ZHUG PE ZHUG SHI RANG YIN ME LUG GI WANG YIN ZHUG PE ZHUG This is the opposite argument.

[Speaker 1]
Anyone want to just guess without reading it?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
This is the opposite argument.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, if you had two objects with the same name.

[Speaker 1]
Good, yeah. What did you say? If you had two guys both called Cha Shi.

Right. Then they should be one person.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. If you have two different guys named John, then they should both be the same person. If names apply in and of themselves.

And he's been flirting with different words for in and of themselves. He used NGO PO YI WANG KYI. He used RANG KYI TE NYI KYI.

And here he says RANG KYI ME LUG KYI WANG KYI. And so he's kind of educating us to different expressions for self-existence. He's giving us different ways of saying self-existence by the nature of the thing.

NGO PO ME TSUG KYI by the nature of the thing. NGO PO ME LUG KYI by the nature of the thing. RANG KYI TE NYI KYI by definition.

Okay? And we had one more before. Oh, LUG KYI by the nature of the thing.

Okay. So here we go. RIG PA GSUM PA.

Here's the third logic. RGYAL BO MA'I DRA BA NYID LA If you have two different guys, okay, and you give them both the same name, DRA BA, one same name, which is TASHI. TASHI.

Okay, so here's the TASHI and TASHI DE LE. If you wanted to know. Yeah.

And this is a big job because we learned this many years ago, 30 years ago. 1998. 20 years ago, we were in the monastery.

Geshe Thich Nguyen Chin taught us the Mind-Only School. About 50 people were in it the second year. And he taught us day after day after day after day and he kept mentioning TASHI.

Then we went to visit the tantric college to visit my teacher who was the abbot. And I took all my students and we, you know, we had a nice chance to see the tantric college and we saw the three retreat facilities. And then the vice abbot stood up and said, my name is TASHI.

And then everybody goes, ah! And then he's like, what's going on here? Because he's been talking about TASHI for a week.

He was a little offended, I think. He said, ,MING DE DON DE NYID LA NGOS DBANG GI BYAS PA THAL, Are you telling me this name, TASHI, applies to those two objects by its own power? ,NGOS PO YI DBANG GIS, ,NGOS PO YI DBANG GIS, ,NGOS DBANG GIS, ,NGOS PO YI DBANG GIS BYAS PA THAL Why do you say that?

Because the fact that those two different objects are named with the same single name exists by definition. They are applied by definition. DBANG GIS BYAS PA'I PHYIR According to you.

And here's the gotcha moment. He's all excited. Go ahead.

[Speaker 2]
,DOD NA, ,NYING GCIG PA LTAR DON GYIS NYID KYANG GCIG DU THAL, THAL'O Get your Ts.

[Speaker 1]
Don't aspirate your Ts, okay? LTAR ,NYING GCIG PA LTAR ,NYING GCIG PA LTAR If you agree, then in the same way that there's only a single name, there must only be a single person being named. Why?

Okay, according to you, if you agree. If the name applies automatically, then as there's only one name, there should only be one person. But there's not, there's two people.

All right?

[Speaker 2]
It's supposed to be very profound, because it doesn't convince me of wit.

[Speaker 1]
It is. By the way, it's correct. It's correct and it's deceptively simple.

It sounds simple, but it's correct and it's profound. Is that correct? And we must be doing it.

We must be thinking names apply automatically, which is probably why we get angry when someone criticizes Neil Young.

[Speaker 2]
Should we be using a different word for same? Because it's not just that the sound of the name is the same, but this particular exact name that this one has can't belong to something else.

[Speaker 1]
I think your language can reflect that. The words you choose in your translation can reflect that feeling.

[Speaker 2]
Is that the thing though?

[Speaker 1]
You can choose to emphasize that feeling. That's okay. It is.

It is, yeah. It's okay. But it's meant to provoke you into thinking about how you name things and how you think those names are natural.

You know, you listened in the radio in the morning. You listened to the Democrats and Republicans talk about the speech last night. The same speech.

I mean, if you listened to each of them separately, you wouldn't believe they're talking about the same speech. But they are. So there must be some naming different going on.

It was idiotic. And then some people say it was brilliant. And then you're thinking, were they listening to the same thing?

[Speaker 2]
Is there a difference here, and is he talking about it, between the thing deserving the name or the name deserving to be given to the thing?

[Speaker 1]
I think it would be more than the thing deserves to be called what it is. Something like that.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, so both of these things deserving that singular name.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Okay, let's keep going. Did you read this part?

[Speaker 2]
No. Good.

[Speaker 1]
He does the same pattern. He gives a logical reason, he finishes, and then he wraps up. And he concludes the same way he did last time.

What did we learn from this thangga? Okay, we had exactly the same parallel here. See?

What did we learn from this thangga? Did he do it the first time? No, he didn't.

No. Okay. So what did we learn from this absurd statement?

Did I go too far? Yeah. Oh yeah.

What did we learn? From this thangga we learn that, and then he goes into a syllogism. Let's take those two objects, meaning?

The name of the thing? The two guys who had the name Tashi. It means the two dudes.

That's right. Okay, let's take those two dudes. They are not what receives the single name by definition.

Why? Because they are... Somebody translate this.

Different things. Yeah, that's all.

[Speaker 2]
They are different entities.

[Speaker 1]
They are different entities. They are separate entities. Now he goes back to that idea that there's a disagreement between the sutras and the Mind-Only School about the status of the thing given the name.

Is it a shindog or is it a ranggog? Is it an archetype or is it an example of the archetype? An expression of the archetype.

Okay, go.

[Speaker 2]
Go. Okay. Okay.

Yeah, good.

[Speaker 1]
You have to be careful on your first columns, whether it's a T or a K, okay? Okay, unkyang. But the depadhana, if we're going to go back to the Sutra School, bumba-shepa-gaya-ngo-kyi-gyur-ja if it were the case that the thing which receives the name vase, okay, existed by definition.

Okay. bumba-lam-nyam-pay-lo-kyi-wa-de then when the mind pops up, when the thought pops up that says, oh, this is a vase, okay, then that would have to happen without depending on having made any connection with the sound. That kind of gyur-gyang, there is that problem.

There is the problem that it wouldn't depend, okay? And I'll go over it again. The name wouldn't depend on the sound?

That the arisal of the thought, this is a vase, would have no connection to a name. To the sound, yeah. Okay.

There's that problem, okay? If it existed by definition. If, as the Mind-Only School says, the thing were the object of the name by definition, then there would be the problem then, okay?

But, wang che la tong-di-rwa-de bumbay-ming-ju-pi shir nang-tsul-tar rang gi tsen-nyi-kyi-dukpa dir-la-ta-bu-la-kyin-me But we can say that when the sensory consciousness, okay, when the pot belly appears to be the object of the name vase, okay, appears to be the object of the name vase, for that to exist by definition, that's no problem for them. That's not a problem for us. Okay.

The fact that it appears to be what's given the name vase by definition is not a problem, okay? The fact that the expression could exist by definition is a problem. Sorry.

Yeah, that the... That the parts exist by definition is not a problem. That the thing is called what it is by definition is not a problem for them.

That the thing, that the archetype could exist by definition is a problem for them, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Got it?

[Speaker 1]
Okay. But the fact that it's named what it is is not a problem for them. More specifically, the fact that it appears to be the basis of what it's called is not, that that exists by definition, that it appears to exist by definition, that's not a problem for them.

Okay? So you have to work with that. That's the basic...

For them, archetypes existing by definition is a problem. But the thing appearing to exist by definition is not a problem because it's real. The expression is real.

For them, existing by definition is a synonym for real. Okay? It's natural.

Please go ahead.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I worked on this.

[Speaker 1]
I thought it was a problem in the text, but it's not. And I'm not sure about the spelling still. I studied it for a long time.

I can't tell if someone's nose was dripping when they printed it. There's a line across the B. I don't know.

We could take a vote in all of his texts. If you're working on Choney Lama text, it would behoove you to create a folder of all the texts that we have by him and see how he typically uses this expression. So anyway, the nam rikpas...

The mentalists.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, the mentalists.

[Speaker 1]
Good. Meaning the mind-only school. They can't make this kind of distinction.

They don't want to make this kind of distinction that the sutras make about the archetype existing... not existing by definition, but the expression existing by definition. They don't want to talk about this kind of distinction.

[Speaker 2]
Geshe-la, we're talking about the archetype here as da, right?

[Speaker 1]
Da is the word. No, da is the word. It's not the archetype.

The archetype...

[Speaker 2]
When you think to yourself, coffee cup. When you think to yourself, vase.

[Speaker 1]
Well, yeah. What you think of in your mind when you say vase in your mind is archetype.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. I was just wondering how the sound knows. The relationship between the sound and the...

I don't want to derail this or sidetrack this.

[Speaker 1]
The thought in your mind, vase, has to somewhere link to a word.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
What's the nature of that word is a debate about the kung shi. Can it deal with groups of names and letters? Right.

We said it can't, right? It can't, no. It can't.

It's part of what it can't. Okay, that's another story.

[Speaker 2]
Sorry.

[Speaker 1]
I get stuck after that. Rigpe pu ne gopa yin no. I think it means they offer reasons why it can't be and they try to deny it.

Deny that idea of the sutras, that you can make this distinction. They cannot accept this distinction. And so they offer reasons to deny it.

I believe he's playing here with the word bu or pu. To spit.

[Speaker 2]
To reject. Which means to reject.

[Speaker 1]
You can offer reasons, but then this would not be instrumental. Rigpa pu is an expression, but rigpe pu is not an expression. But rigpe pu is an expression, which means pu.

You know what I mean?

[Speaker 2]
How do you spell pu?

[Speaker 1]
P-H-U-D. P-H-U-D. But that means somebody mistook the D for an L a long time ago and carved an L.

Anyway, the point is clear. The point is clear. They don't want to make this distinction and they use logic to disprove it.

And they use these three logics. I mean, maybe it relates to these three logics. They use logic to disprove this concept.

They give their own logic. And I believe he's referring to the three logics. But you can make that connection lightly.

Because it might refer to other logics. Anyway, it gets less weird. Here we go.

[Speaker 2]
BYANG SA DANG DU BA NYID MED KYANG THEG DRO'I RIG PA ZHES TE PHYIR GZHAN BLANG BYAR BAR BYA'U Okay, BYANG SA... Bodhisattva?

[Speaker 1]
Bodhisattva Bhumi. Another text by a Sangha. And this is THEG DU.

This DU BA is THEG DU. Mahayana Sangha. So these two texts repeat this kind of logic that we've given you here.

And you can apply it to other objects other than vases or tashis. It applies to other kinds of objects also. Other stuff.

It refers to other stuff also. Not just guys named tashis or vases.

[Speaker 2]
Are we making a distinction there? I mean, is it CHOS and things, or is it CHOS and all things?

[Speaker 1]
Other stuff. It applies to other stuff too. Because you've got to cover people and things because tashis come up and vases come up.

Whatever word you choose for CHOS it has to cover tashis and bumbos. Other stuff too. Other objects.

He didn't refer to a tashi even as an object. So that's okay. As a DON.

He referred to a tashi as a DON. Okay, go.

[Speaker 2]
,'OD NA LAS KHAR TE DU DAG GIS, ,'NGO BO DANG KHYAD PAR LA, ,KHUN DAG PAS, ,KHUN DAG RANG GI TSE NAD KYIS ,MAN THUGS PA RTOGS NUS KYANG, ,ZUGS SOGS CI RO DON GYIS, ,RTOGS MA JI LTAR RTOGS NUS ZHES NA, This is why I love Choney Lama.

[Speaker 1]
He thinks like a Westerner, to be frank. Tsongkhapa's writing is much more intuitive. He makes great leaps of imagination.

And Choney Lama just slogs through part point by point and he takes the trouble to segue. Segue means make a connection to the next topic. He's smooth.

He has nice segues. He's almost like a Princeton professor. So it's very comfortable for a Westerner to read Choney Lama.

And I think we should translate his whole thing. I have his 12 collected works above my bed because I want the blessing. It's the only thing I have above my bed, his 12 works.

So, very eminently translatable. I'm working on the Diamond Cutter. We're working on the Diamond Cutter commentary.

And the Heart Sutra commentary, which we will finish within the next month. The two books. But I love this.

I just love it. It's brilliant. Because it's Western.

Okay, well then. You can use the logic you just gave us. And using it, you will be able to figure out that when you go applying names to the main thing and to the characteristics, those nominalizations, those namings, okay?

Ming kun tak, okay? And here is the first time anyone's mentioned the Mainomi school's kun tak. And apparently it's not a big subject in these presentations of the Mainomi.

But it's a beautiful subject in the Shenzhen text, the text that the Shenzhen people are doing, Yuan Tzu. Okay, so anyway. RANG GI CHEN GYI'I DBANG GRUB PA We can understand that the application of names to objects, whether it be to the main object or to its characteristics, what are the three characteristics typically listed?

Starting, staying, and stopping. Yeah, the starting, the remaining, and the stopping of the thing. Okay, we get it.

We're okay with that. But what kind of logic, how are we going to figure out, what kind of reasoning are you going to give us that we can figure out what? Emptiness?

[Speaker 2]
Emptiness.

[Speaker 1]
How physical matter is empty of, devoid of, and here's a good place to use devoid. How physical matter and others... By the way, this is a standard term for shijia.

It's a normal thing. Yeah, starting with stuff and everything else. Physical stuff and everything else.

It's a typical word for all the stuff in the universe. Just get used to that. Suksok means shijia.

Starting with this cup, going on up to the, you know, baba. Chiru dung kyi. Kyi tongwa.

Devoid of. In English, you need to use the genitive. In English, you have to use of.

In Tibetan, you have to use insumare. Devoid of what? Being an outer object.

Yeah, being an outer object. Now, give us some reasons for that. We appreciate the three reasons for why things are not called themselves automatically.

Now, can you do the same for us with about outer objects? And then we understand what the mainoni is all about. Okay, that's a cool segue.

New day, I can do that. Yeah, you can figure that out.

[Speaker 2]
It's possible.

[Speaker 1]
Go ahead. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Cool.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, now, it's a brilliant, it's a brilliant segue. He continues the segue. And he says, he says, if the names don't apply by definition, okay, he ties it to the first one, the first kind of emptiness.

If the names don't apply by definition, then there's a mistake going on. And he ties it to the one before, which is also brilliant. Which you should learn to do when you teach it.

Like, they're not two separate thoughts. They're not two separate concepts. The fact that names don't apply naturally and the fact that things are not outer objects, the way they appear to be naturally, in the kung qi, are connected.

And so it's very nice if you can... This is brilliant. This is beautiful.

I haven't seen it elsewhere. And it's a little tricky, so you've got to sit with it for a while. Why his first three proofs apply to his proofs about outer objects.

Yeah. And I don't know. Maybe he makes a little bit of a big jump here.

I think it's cool that he wants to try. I think it's sexy that he wants to tie them together. And probably they do tie together at some point.

In the same way that the eight differences between the tengyur and nangyupa all tie together by one common theme of things don't exist by definition. Is it by definition? I forgot what he said yesterday.

Okay. She ma takpa tar. As I just explained.

You see, he's trying it. He's tying it back. Ma tak means as I just...

It's an idiom. Idiot for as I just. Just.

She ma tak. As I just explained. And that's takpa.

And therefore you have to say takpa. It's not takpa. It's takpa.

There's takpa. Everybody wants to say takpa all the time. For R-T-A-G.

Okay, here's your chance.

[Speaker 2]
Takpa.

[Speaker 1]
Second column. This is the last takpa you'll need for a long time. All the other ones are takpa.

Okay, T. Takpa. That is why an Indian sounds like that because they are not aspirating anything.

Give me a cup of tea and hand me the pen. Okay? They are first column everything.

You can sound like an Indian and just first column everything. And you'll get it by... You can talk on the phone in India and they won't know who it is.

Okay? Takpa. So, yeah.

Yeah, good. Good, good. I'll kiss you but you're too far away.

RANG BZIN TOG PA'I GZHAN GYUR The misperception, right? Without the S. Which holds on to it.

Okay? And feels a certain way about it. Okay?

GZHAN BA Right? Get that GZHAN BA down. It doesn't mean always the attachment.

In the study of perception it means to feel a certain way about it wrongly. And GZHAN GYUR is what you feel about. Okay?

About the object that you're feeling about? Yeah, that you're having a feeling about. GZHAN GYUR The blue, that you're having a feeling about it, that it's...

Coming from... It's an outer object.

[Speaker 2]
That it's an outer object. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, okay. And then it's just an inner object. Yeah, okay.

GZHAN GYUR RANG GI TSE NAS KYI GRUB PA'I PHRAG PA NA If you deny that it could be the object of your wrong feeling by definition... Right. He's trying desperately to tie those two ideas together.

He brought back RANG GI TSE NAS KYI GRUB PA. Okay? He's not talking about SHI ROL BDOD.

He's like, let's tie it back to that last one. By nature. By definition.

So, if it... If it... If things were the objects that get the names they do by definition, was the last one.

Now he switched it over to if things were what you think they are by definition. Okay? That you feel they are by definition.

He wants to get the definition again. DE'I TSE SNANG BA LTAR GZHAN PA'I RTOG PA Oh, sorry. Once you KEG PA that...

Once you deny... Yeah, once you disprove that it could be what you feel it is by definition, meaning an outer object. He's going to go there.

Once you disprove that, then you prove that the wrong idea, which has a feeling that the thing exists as it appears, right? Who had that as a tabular item?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, okay. There's a feeling that it must be as it appears to be. Meaning what?

As an outer object. Because the fact that names apply to their objects was also something you had a feeling about. You got it?

He's tying them... He's tying them together. GZHAN SNANG BA LTAR GZHAN PA'I RTOG PA Then you can prove that you are mistaken towards what you feel.

About what you feel. That is rather blue. In the same way that you were mistaken about how the word Tashi applies or how the word Ves applies.

Cool? It's brilliant. I like it.

Okay, go.

[Speaker 2]
DE'I RTOG PA'I RTOG GI DE LTAR NANG BA'I DBANG ZHES NANG Just unaspirated. LTAR, DE LTAR. Yeah, LTAR.

I tried really hard. It's okay.

[Speaker 1]
It'll come. DE LTAR NANG BA'I DBANG ZHES NANG KYANG RANG GI GYIS NANG YUL LA PHRUL BAR GRUB If you can prove that the way we feel about an object is somehow existing by itself, then you can go on to your sense consciousnesses. Less theoretical and more concrete.

DE'I RTOG PA'I RTOG GI Once you prove that your feeling is wrong, once you prove that your feeling is wrong, then you can go down to the sense consciousnesses and understand the dharma when they think that the blue is the other. Okay? Because in this school, we mainly...

It's DUNS, RANGS, and BHAG CHAGS. What is that? The five sense objects.

Five sense objects. And the two old pieces of fish. Ah, nice.

Okay. So once you establish that your feeling is wrong about what appears to it, you can establish that your sense consciousnesses are wrong about what appears to them, which is outer objects. So he just segwayed.

Okay. And DE'I DRUB NA, keep going. Let's see if we can cut this one.

Okay. DE'I DRUB NA If you prove that the sense consciousness is mistaken towards a subject, towards what it thinks it sees, NAM YON, then, DBANG PHYIR LA LUNG PO SOGS KYI NAM PAR BZHAR BA DE, then the appearance of an aspect of blue to the sense consciousness, that appearance, BZHAR BA here is the same as NAM BAR. Don't forget.

[Speaker 2]
Aspect.

[Speaker 1]
And another tense of BZHAR BA is CHAR MA, apostrophe CH. So just get used to that. When the blue, when things like blues appear to the sense consciousness, PHYIR RO BDUN GYIS RANG DE'I NAM PAR TSUL TE NI BZHAR BA MA YIN, they don't appear in the sense that an outer object is TSUL TE.

You know these two pieces. You've never seen them together.

[Speaker 2]
It's this way. This way.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, usually you're directing your mind, right? But here it's like the outer object is directing. It's not aiming an appearance at you.

[Speaker 2]
Dictating.

[Speaker 1]
It's not aiming an appearance at you, okay? It's not that there's an outer object which is talking to you. I'm an outer object.

That's what it says. It's not that it's presenting to you... It's not...

The lie is not coming from the object. The lie is not coming from the object. It's TSUL TE.

It's not coming from an outside object. Oh look, I'm an outer object. It's not talking to you like that.

[Speaker 2]
So Geshe-la, how do NAM BAR and CHAR MA, are they sex symbols? Or do we say here arises?

[Speaker 1]
No, never arises. For the mind, no. The emphasis of Kshatriya in the mind is never the emphasis it is with the son.

Okay. We're a couple minutes over. We're going to stop there and we'll come back to it.

Someday. We're halfway through an important thought.

[Speaker 2]
And we're 20 pages away from the end of Term 3. Your text is hard.

[Speaker 1]
What can I say? I have a feeling we'll speed up because what could be harder than these two subjects?

[Speaker 2]
Don't say that.

[Speaker 1]
You never know. I don't mind. The more valuable stuff goes slower.

This is a cool book.

[Speaker 2]
It does, it does.

[Speaker 1]
The more valuable stuff goes slower.

[Speaker 2]
And it's really helping with his book.

[Speaker 1]
You know, the stuff we're getting here is helping us understand his book.

[Speaker 2]
And probably sets us up to understand my book eventually.

[Speaker 1]
When his book gets to something coherent, we'll be in it. I don't know. I haven't looked ahead that far.

I'm hoping. I'm assuming. It's very frustrating.

Last night I almost couldn't go on. It was the 38 Qualities of the Jains and I was just getting ahead of it.

[Speaker 2]
I actually got ahead of it.

[Speaker 1]
And then I got grumpy. And then I said, I've got to stop this because these are coming crazy. I also ended on my own.

Thank you. By the way, I really encourage each translator put a note here, stop here, turn four.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
I want each of you to do it. Oh, what's wrong with me? It doesn't want to save it.

I'll work on it. But please mark where you stopped. Okay?

Because you're getting paid to do that in the next, how many weeks we give them? Six weeks. Six weeks.

You've got six weeks from today. We want turn four in his hands.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
So you've got to mark where turn four stops. All right. Thank you, Geshe-la.

You're very welcome. Thank you for thanking.