Медитации на пустоту: объяснение шагов к пониманию того, что ничто не является самим собой, занятие 26

[Speaker 1]
When you're ready, let me know. I think sashi better at the beginning. Inam guru ratnamandala kangeyatayami chen nam sok gi chok nam la jang chu bar du dak ni dam su chi dak gi chen yin gyu pe sol nam ki do la pen chir sang nge drupar sol chen nam sok gi chok nam la jang chu bar du dak ni dam su chi dak gi chen yin gyu pe sol nam ki do la pen chir sang nge drupar sol chen nam sok gi chok nam la jang chu bar du dak ni dam su chi dak gi chen yin gyu pe sol nam ki do la pen chir sang nge drupar sol Smoky dogyi. Just for Commander Foley. Her text, so we try to spread out all the genres of Tibetan literature, and we try to spread out all the schools of Tibetan literature, and then between all the khanzadas we'll cover all the special vocabularies.

So her text is called Thak Chi, which is a genre of Tibetan literature, meaning a meditation on emptiness. So her text is just a long series of meditations on emptiness. And they actually go through all the schools' opinions on emptiness, because the human mind, the nature of the human mind is to go through the same process.

Every human mind will go through the same process. So we're not really just going through all the schools' ideas on emptiness. We are designing a meditation for any human being.

Progressive meditation. And it would be very interesting at the end of your text to actually design a retreat, for example, and say day one work on this part, day two work on this part, and turn it into an actual Thak Chi. So her text is going through ideas of emptiness in each school.

And we are in the Mind-Only School. And they have two grand versions of emptiness. The first one was ...

That's a little bit different. ... ...

Things are empty of preserving their name by definition. Good. Things are empty of being called what they are called by nature.

Names are artificial. And if people understood that, it would reduce a lot of the conflict in the world. This is what my mom called it.

C.S. Lewis, a great Christian writer, calls it the fish knife question. That's not what my mom called a fish knife. So that's not a fish knife.

And then you have arguments with ... Then you have, you know, holy wars. Anyway, so we covered that.

We finished it. Things are not called what they are called by nature. The names we apply to things are artificial.

Then what's the great second kind of emptiness in this book? An object ... A situation in which the object has no seeds is not separate from the one which you perceive.

Yeah, but specifically we're on outer objects right now. In her text, when you think you see green drink, what you're really looking at is karmic seeds coming out of your mind. And in your mind, you are seeing green.

But the higher school kind of agrees. But they would say the green is still outside. Because the seed opens as an outside thing.

Yeah, higher school. So in a way, the mind-only school idea is pretty close to correct. You are watching a seed opening in your mind, but the higher school would say it still qualifies as an outside object.

But this school says, look, if you're just looking at a corner of your mind, then mind-only. And we're going to have a quotation for you. I think it's in your text.

Coming up, where the Buddha is adamant that SEMS TZAM MO, SEMS TZAM MO, SEMS TZAM MO He repeats it like ten times. It's just mind. It's just mind-only, mind-only, mind-only.

Long before the mind-only school started, in Sutras, Buddha was saying SEMS TZAM MO, SEMS TZAM MO, SEMS TZAM MO. And we're going to get there. So we're in the middle of looking at the difference between the lower schools and the higher schools, meaning mind-only school, because that's the hat we're wearing now, which is how they say it in the debate ground.

You're wearing mind-only school. You are a mind-only scholar right now. Then we are looking at how the Stanley school, those idiots, think about Araham.

So right now it's a fight between Word and Stanley. And being reported by Utpala. No, really.

Utpala is reporting a fight between Word and Stanley, which Ben would record in his list of schools. No, that's the relationship here. Okay, go.

We're at Chirdeniki.

[Speaker 2]
I thought we're doing a quiz?

[Speaker 1]
I'm sorry, doing a quiz. Yeah, I'm sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry. We gave you most of the answers, so this should be really fast.

Machiop.

[Speaker 2]
Could be really fast. What are the three reasons that Shinranma gives for why things are not, by definition, what we call them?

[Speaker 1]
Good, good question. I like this question. Any object wouldn't be able to have different names and be the same thing?

[Speaker 2]
That was the second one.

[Speaker 1]
That's kind of the second one.

[Speaker 2]
There's one name. Oh yeah, that doesn't give the meaning.

[Speaker 1]
Say it again, please. Any object couldn't have this, well, that's the third one.

[Speaker 2]
Two people with the same name would be the same person.

[Speaker 1]
That's the third one. The third one is that you wouldn't need somebody to teach you. If it's a language or you don't need a mother.

Yeah, he's got it. You don't need your mom to tell you this is a thing. The word would pop into your head.

Right, the word would pop into your head before you even saw the object. The second one, which is any two people. You couldn't give two people one name.

[Speaker 2]
That's the third one.

[Speaker 1]
What's the second one? I'll give you a clue. Ishvara.

[Speaker 2]
Shakra. Yeah, Ishvara. One object can't have more than one name.

Because, that's what I'm looking for. Because they have to be different.

[Speaker 1]
Because they're different things. Good. If you call him Dr. Wu or you call him Eric, with two different names, then there'd be two guys sitting here. If the name automatically referred to him. Okay, got it? Nice.

Please continue. Where'd those arguments come from? They came from Tegtu.

Tegtu. Tegtu. Maya Asanga.

Yeah, Asanga.

[Speaker 2]
So do you happen to recall how Choney Lama links these three with our next topic?

[Speaker 1]
Ah, now that's the nicest question I ever heard. How a name and other objects are connected? How the fact that an object doesn't have a name by definition links to the fact that, what is our next topic?

[Speaker 2]
I love how you said it links instead of proves.

[Speaker 1]
Right. How do those two things link? That's a good question.

I remember that it was awesome.

[Speaker 2]
That's a great statement, I love it. Because if we don't understand that things are not what they're called by definition, when we have this misunderstanding that can cause the default in our eye consciousness, and then we see things wrong, then that causes us to believe that, to see that there are other objects.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, because our sense faculties are mistaken. At the beginning it was time. Misunderstanding.

I'm going to throw in another thing, okay? Based on what Dr. Wu said. The first reason, right?

If this were called computer by nature, then I wouldn't need my mother to teach me what this is called. The minute I look at it, the word computer would come in my mind. And that, now listen.

I'm trying to satisfy him. Which is, you're a good test for all of us. You don't agree to everything.

You actually make us think. So, if this thing, if the moment I looked at it, the word computer came in my mind, then would that, sorry, would that be coming this way or that way?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, wrong.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, right. Because until I see one, the word computer doesn't come in my mind. So, my mom takes me out.

She takes me to the library. Someone's using a computer. I see the outside thing, and it suggests the word computer to my mind.

Its identity, it suggests to my mind. Now it's easier to see why it relates to outer objects. You see what I mean?

I'm trying to tie it closer. The two great emptinesses of the mind-only school are linked in this text for the first time I've seen it. And that's the link.

I'll say it again. If this thing recalled what it is by itself, automatically, then when my mom took me to the library and I saw my first computer, she wouldn't have to tell me the name. I would look at it, and the word computer would come in my mind.

If names are automatic. And is that coming from me, or to me? It's coming from this object.

Because until I saw this object, I didn't think computer. So, ignorance things, words are coming this way. Things are coming this way.

That the computer is an outside thing. See, he wants to tie together the great two emptinesses of the mind-only school. He's the first guy I've ever seen try.

He's the first person I've ever seen try it. Got it? The fact that it's named what it is, has a deep connection to a belief in outer objects.

Got it? Got it? You okay?

That's good. Yeah, that's sexy. Yes, Mr. Anton. Yeah, no, I agree, I agree. That's probably why there's two. Yeah, I agree.

It doesn't prove it yet, but it indicates it. How's that? Okay, you have any more questions?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, so what is going on, according to the mentalists, when we see something?

[Speaker 1]
Mentalist? No, the mind-only.

[Speaker 2]
What is another word for mind-only?

[Speaker 1]
Mentalist. Namrikpa.

[Speaker 2]
Namrikpa. Yes, please.

[Speaker 1]
Wait, say it louder. Right, so your visual consciousness takes on the aspect that the object perceives. Okay, good, nice.

So I suppose kambo has no meaning.

[Speaker 2]
Nope. Oh, okay, next. Tamar.

[Speaker 1]
Earlier.

[Speaker 2]
Yes, far earlier.

[Speaker 1]
So this is us having repeated over and over and over and over and over. We're seeing things the wrong way.

[Speaker 2]
That's right. Oh, from before.

[Speaker 1]
By the way, just in general, the word ro can mean to play.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, rope. Rope. Rope Dorje.

[Speaker 1]
But it has a totally other meaning, which means side. So paro. Suro.

Koro. Paro means param, other side. Paramita.

Suro means sotong. Sees it coming from that side. And this guru is the beginning side, as opposed to the later side.

Earlier side as opposed to later side. Koro. Very rare, actually.

Yeah, okay. Chiro, oh nice, you got two ro.

[Speaker 2]
Later.

[Speaker 1]
No. Outer. Chiro can do it.

Oh, he really wants a book. Okay. I can smell it.

I'm waiting until it gets stronger. Little wonky. Yeah, the outer school is that people are not Buddhists.

Oh yeah. Chiro pa. Chiro pa means non-Buddhist.

But chiro means outer. Little wonky. Little wonky.

I'll give you a clue. I'll give you a clue. His text said the word mu here is not generic.

It's not in its usual sense. Rang tsen pa. By the way, if he had said rang tsen, totally, totally different meaning.

But your author said rang tsen pa. This word is not rang tsen pa. Nupo here is not rang tsen pa.

Yeah, it's not a functional thing. Right, we're not using it in its normal meaning. Little wonky means...

It just means a physical thing. It means by the nature of things. So it's things in the sense of things in the universe.

It's not things in the sense of dzun dzin nupa.

[Speaker 2]
Functional thing. Okay, got it?

[Speaker 1]
You did some good questions. Perfect. Perfect.

No, but you hit the important points. And it was cute what you did with the vocabulary.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Alright, here we go. Oh, I've got to turn on my thing. Here we go.

I kind of want to go over these two sentences.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Where do you have the plane? You're the co-pilot.

Go. Go slow and clear. Go slow and clear.

Use it. So if you want to scream at me, you can come over here. No, no, we're okay.

He'll talk loud. He'll talk loud. Oh, sorry.

I'm not supposed to do that. Okay, okay. Are we good?

We good? Okay. So he's trying to describe how the lower two schools believe in outer objects.

Because when you get to the third school, they don't. And when you get to the fourth school, yeah, fifty-fifty, nice, but for different reasons. So generally speaking, those two, meaning dunmawa, lower two schools, Stanley and Adam, sung dzin gyi gyepu la, to a person who is observing a cup, meaning keptero in Sanskrit, in Latin, conceived holding a cup, whose whole percept, per kepto, who's holding a cup, to them, it seems as though it is appearing to them from a distance, gyang che.

So gyang means a long way away. Che means medium, distance. Che literally means dorje chupa, chedrika, cut separated to a distance.

Gyang che means separated to a distance. It looks like somehow I'm perceiving something which is far away. I'm separated by a distance, gyang che.

So gyang che kyi tsul du, in that manner, we are perceiving the cup at a distance. Something is bridging across. This is the classic science problem of explaining how light reaches the earth from the sun.

Is it waves? Is it particles? Or an Abhidharma school guy would say, my eyeball is touching the sun.

Okay? Okay? Gyang che.

And they call that, we're going to have it next. Okay? So they, therefore, they say, come on, outer objects exist.

Why? This thing is a meter away from you. Give it up.

Anybody, any fool can see that there's a distance between me and the cup. It's got to be outside. If it was inside, there wouldn't be any distance between me and the cup.

Duh! Okay, that's lower school. Here's the next sentence.

Ready? Nick, you have the plane. You can say that.

[Speaker 2]
Nice.

[Speaker 1]
Two prenaissance.

[Speaker 2]
Nice.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, good. Open vowel, ending in a vowel. Sound ending in a vowel.

Next word is a prenasal. DUN DZIN, Ganden Monastery. Okay, there's no N in Ganden.

It's just a prenasal. GA NGON DZIN Okay, but open vowel, Ganden. DUN DZIN DUN DZIN BAR MDOD Okay?

Because Duh without the prenasal means original Sanskrit term. DOD means original Sanskrit term. What's the K Duh of this word means?

Yeah, what's the ancient Sanskrit for this word? And ancient times, Duh means substitute. So if you don't pronounce it right, the reader doesn't...

the listener doesn't know what you're trying to say. It's the way I sometimes have to talk with listeners, and then sing with them, but I'm surprised what's playing. No, you see, it sounds like that when you don't pronounce the prenasal to a Tibetan.

He's like... It's like when I speak Chinese to Stanley, and he looks at me like this, and I go, and he's like, and they go, Oh, that's Chinese! Okay.

Can't find...

[Speaker 2]
Ask for the characteristics of the teacher.

[Speaker 1]
Somebody guess. It's difficult here. It's an adverb.

You're close.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
You know, our last sentence was those two groups. Cheater. So the cheater in the last sentence is as opposed to the caper in this sentence.

Generally speaking, we're talking about the two lower groups, because they accept, they easily accept honor objects. More especially, okay, so how you translate it has to call back to the cheater. The caper has to call back to the cheater.

Okay, more especially, more particularly, the che da ma was, they believe, right, that the way we hold it is that the I sense power, we had it yesterday in Sugeng's text. No. Stanley's text.

Whose text was it? Sugeng's text. The optic nerve of the arhat.

Miquang. It's physical, okay? Remember, it's physical.

It's the sense. Technically, in Buddhism, it's the cells at the end of the optic nerve in the back of the eyeball. Okay, Miquang, they believe that there's some kind of mystical contact.

Okay? Contact without a medium. I would translate it that way for now.

I worked hard on it. It's just not clear anywhere. Except by Lajna, you can figure it out.

Because other people say, well, if it's that way, then if there's some kind of contact without a medium, which is what the Vaibhashika believe, there's contact without a medium. But it's still at a distance. But there's some kind of mystical contact without a medium.

Other schools criticize this idea, nam mey thuk che, they say what? If there's some mystical contact without a medium, then you should be able to see this just as clearly as if it was out in the parking lot. Yeah, and then the Vaibhashika give a very sweet answer.

They say, no, it's all karma. Okay? It's true.

All things being equal, you should be able to see the glass of orange juice as well on the next mountain. If there's no building in between, right? What does the presence of a medium have to do with how ...

Ah, good. Medium here, to me, what it means is this is not exuding pictures of itself to the eye. Look, I'm this.

Look, I'm this. Look, I'm this, you see? It's not as though ...

And that's what science believes, you see? It's not as though the cup is peeling off images and sending them to the eye. Oh look, there, that's what I am.

Because if you're a scientist, you have to believe that's what's happening. Images are being ... Images are being ejected from the glass to the eye.

Over and over. Constantly. And you can say bounce lights bounce off, but it's the same.

After the bouncing light hits it and it bounces to the eye, that's vaibhashika. I'm sorry, it's lower than vaibhashika. There's pictures coming to the eye, you see?

How do you see things? And then vaibhashika says, no, it's just karma ripening. And you have less karma when the glass of orange juice is on the mountain.

You have less karma, so it's less clear. Which is not a bad answer. Okay, got it?

So anyway, contact without a medium. Where's the medium? Nampa mampa.

Yeah, meaning the medium of images being transmitted to the eye from the cup. Nampa mampa. Nampa mampa.

Thug means to touch. It's related to the word for a sangha, thug. Same second column.

[Speaker 2]
Thugme.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, in colloquial Tibetan, thug chung. I met him. I met him.

[Speaker 2]
You mean almost like a messenger?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, like a thing. But what I want the feeling is, without an intermediary image. How's that?

It's more clear. If you want to make sure the reader doesn't understand. Yeah, no, maybe it's more clear.

So maybe I'm open to other...

[Speaker 2]
No, because we're talking about...

[Speaker 1]
And by the way, che means make contact. And we had it in his text. Do you remember where?

I'll give you a clue. Disembodied Karma Triggers. That's what I'm going to name my next band.

Disembodied Karma Triggers. It came up in his text, at the beginning of his text. It's not the cocoon thing.

I'll give you clues, okay? This word che, which means to touch, or to make contact, came up in his text when he's talking about... His text is all about the 12 links of the Wheel of Life.

It came up in his text. Why? How does that relate to the Kamalashila idea of Disembodied Karma Triggers?

We're talking about the person causing the movement. Touch. Do they touch or not?

When the wind blows a tree and makes it move, where's the point of contact? Where's the point of contact? How many atoms touch?

Is the wind the cause of the tree moving or not? Yes or no? No.

It's alcohol. What? The wind blows.

A leaf goes like this. Did the wind make the leaf move? Yes or no?

School of the world. Yeah, it did. Now, is it true that a cause must be finished before the result comes out?

Yeah. So a cause can never touch a result. It's not possible.

The wind never touches the leaf. The word te came in his text. Big, big concept in his text at the very beginning.

How can one link trigger another? By the time misunderstanding is done, karma is formed. But misunderstanding never touches the formation of karma.

Link one cannot cause link two. There's no contact. There cannot be a contact between the thing that ended a moment ago and the thing that just started.

Where's the contact? Split the moment. Make it smaller.

But what about the front and back of that moment? This is a proof of emptiness. Things are coming from your seeds.

Your mind created the wind. And a moment later, your mind created the movement of the leaf. And the wind did not make the leaf move.

Yeah, it's so cool.

[Speaker 2]
Which is why we can say te means make contact.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, exactly. If you're a Buddha, you would say it that way. So anyway, that's te.

It means make contact. So they say there's contact without a medium. There's no intermediary.

Somehow the optic nerve is moved by the cup of orange juice. But there's no intermediary. Okay?

Then these are all the notes it took me to figure out that concept.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
And that's why it's frustrating for me to not have time to work. To not have time to prepare. See, I have to look it up in like ten different texts and read them and study them.

No, but it's very frustrating if I have to go raise money or stuff like that.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and then we won't have a place to sit and have translation. Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
You have to put...

[Speaker 1]
No, you don't need to. You know, the only one I would footnote, make yourself a footnote. Make yourself a note.

Let's do the one about the argument where the guy says, well then, why is it less clear at a distance? If there's no contact. If there's no direct...

If there's contact without a medium. If there's no medium of, say, air between... They say that in science, right?

There's a symphony. The symphony is playing. The violin is playing.

And you're over there in the Bolshoi Theater. And you're listening and it's coming through the medium to your ear. If it's true somehow that magically the violin touches your ear and there's no air between for the sound particles.

Science struggles there. Oh yeah, sound particle bangs into another sound particle. Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang.

That's nampa gyupa. Medium. With a medium.

Somehow, according to Abhidharma, there's a direct contact. Okay. And then the objection to that.

See, you can only understand what they mean by studying the objection to it. Which is that, well then why do I see things better when they're close? If there's no medium.

So that's how you can understand this weird expression. Because nobody else ever talks about it. 23 people in a million pages mention it.

Nobody explains it. They keep just repeating it.

[Speaker 2]
Now if we skipped over that, the Sautrantika school about it, I mean the Abhidharma says there's no medium. Does that mean that Sautrantika says there is a medium? Oh here?

That'd be great, thanks. I could just please...

[Speaker 1]
It's a next sentence. You got the plain.

[Speaker 2]
mi kye la teng du teng dre nam pa shar way go ne nzin par ndul do That's right, ndul do.

[Speaker 1]
I like the next part because I understand it. Okay, do depa. The Sautrantika.

Yeah, the Sutra school. So-called because. Now we go to your book.

Sooner or later your books are all going to get married. There's going to be a big commune. Everyone's going to be married to everybody.

His book, his book yesterday said, Good. The dupapos were not arhats. Because they weren't...

The people who collected the Abhidharma books together after Buddha died, they were not arhats because they weren't Aryas. They weren't even Aryas. Why not?

Because somebody said they were not Aryas.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, right, that's right.

[Speaker 1]
K.F.J. In Tukten Chidor said they were not Aryas. So that's why these guys are called Sutras. de ne de che di ni tunpay sung so lo They say it was spoken by the teacher.

Meaning? Meaning it's the word and not the direct words of. Yeah, right.

Yeah, Vasubandhu says they say Abhidharma was taught by Buddha, but no. Collected by people who were not even Aryas. Meaning, his two closest disciples were not Aryas.

When the first teaching he ever gave, and he repeated it five times, everybody in the room became an Arya. And his two closest disciples who spent 51 years with him didn't become Aryas. And those other five guys became Aryas in the first five minutes?

And in the Heart Sutra, cha ju sempa sempa chenpo Great, great, great bodhisattva, meaning who saw emptiness. Okay? But the two main disciples didn't?

I don't know. Maybe Modgalyayana and Shariputra collected the Abhidharma with the intention that people would understand it as the way Nagarjuna took it. And then people didn't get it.

Maybe his text is correct. What's his text say? Good.

[Speaker 2]
In the Abhidharma school.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, that's what his text says. Nagarjuna says, look, I didn't make up this emptiness stuff. The Buddha taught it to you guys.

You didn't get it. All right, anyway. Here we go.

Dodepe.

[Speaker 2]
So they believe that the high consciousness holds through Yeah, good, that's okay.

[Speaker 1]
They believe that the coffee cup or the color of the coffee cup You see? The cup is sending images to the eye. This is as opposed to nam-me.

[Speaker 2]
This is with me.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Of an image. A broker.

[Speaker 1]
An image flying from the cup to the eye. Now I slightly object to this sentence. It's not parallel.

Because of this word here.

[Speaker 2]
High consciousness. To the eye.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, before it was Lambo. Before it was the optic nerve. He's doing a switch on us.

He says we're going to get a Mercedes and he sold us a Toyota.

[Speaker 2]
Toyotas are great. They're fine. Mercedes is a really nice car.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, so whereas the Abhidharma school has some kind of a direct Somehow the orange juice cup touches the eye optic nerve. But in the second school it's sending images to the consciousness, the visual consciousness. In the third school we are watching seeds ripen in the mind.

It's very interesting this evolution of the idea.

[Speaker 2]
So the it's and it's sending images that say is Oh, that's a good question.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, what's the you? Yeah, it is the coffee cup. Similar to the coffee cup.

It is sending pictures. It is sending simulations of itself. Photos of itself.

Okay? Likenesses in English. It is sending likenesses of itself.

A likeness of itself.

[Speaker 2]
Avatars. I mean, it's not by the way in the agenda, right? So we don't have to say it's sending, we don't have to give it agency.

[Speaker 1]
He doesn't ever mention who's sending it, except they.

[Speaker 2]
But it's coming from them.

[Speaker 1]
It's images being sent to them.

[Speaker 2]
That's good.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. It's actually possessive. It's images It's images appearing to the eye consciousness.

Meaning the cups. Okay. Hey, now we're getting to something easier.

I like it. Wait, who's got the plane? You got the plane.

[Speaker 2]
de yang du chen wang she kyi yul nyen e du chen jang me sak pe rak pa de shi lo gyi dun du dok Yeah, you see my note to myself.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, and this is the elephant in the Kamalashila teachings. How do you see an elephant? You cannot be seeing the individual atoms.

They're too small. They're an angstrom wide, angstrom and a half wide. You can't see them.

The eye cannot detect a single atom. Okay, so that's what this first part says. The first half of the sentence says the eye cannot detect.

A sense power, a sense consciousness cannot detect an individual atom. du chen means individual atom. What's du chen gyi bum?

Okay, they don't have a word for bum.

[Speaker 2]
They borrowed a word. du chen gyi bum.

[Speaker 1]
I was reading a Tibetan newspaper. Do you know this story? Rinpoche wouldn't let me speak Tibetan in the house, but he let Art speak Tibetan in the house.

So I was jealous. So I ignored everybody during breakfast and read the Tibetan newspaper, which I ordered from India. Then I would ask Rinpoche questions.

What's du chen gyi bum? That's bum. That's a bum.

What's pop? The pope. Yeah, that's it.

The pope in Inuyama. What's pope? Oh, okay, okay.

Anyway, he was trying to get me to make the karma to read Tibetan, but I didn't understand. Oh, I see. So therefore the atom is not an object to the sense consciousness.

Right, cannot be. The sense consciousness cannot detect a single atom. Therefore, de, therefore, s, right?

Therefore, and I guess he's talking about these guys, right? Because they have this idea of eight atoms in a molecule. Minimum eight atoms in a molecule.

Je gye. Which is kind of similar to the genes, but see, it all ties together. Anyway, du chen cha me sakpay rakpa.

The grosser collection of partless atoms. Good, a gross collection of partless atoms, perfectly translated.

[Speaker 2]
Nice.

[Speaker 1]
Meaning a molecule. In English you say molecule. Collection of atoms, right?

chiro kyi don du du. That's the meaning of an outer object. Anything made of molecules which are made of atoms.

And that's what science believes. And it's wrong. It's mistaken.

And because of that, aspirins don't work. All the time. Because of that misperception, science cannot make an aspirin that works all the time.

But all they've said is, or they can't make a plane that never falls down. If they understood what's really making the steel hard, they could make a plane that never fell down. And they'd be safer for the blind.

[Speaker 2]
So how are we connecting these two ideas together?

[Speaker 1]
That's a good question. Apparently, he says moreover, right? I guess he's referring to the sutras.

But I believe he could also be referring to the Vibhashika. So is he referring, when he starts going off on molecules being outer things, is he talking about both the schools together, the lower schools together, or is he talking about just the sutras which he was just talking about? If I was going to translate this, I would fudge it.

So there's a translation principle called fudging. They believe. Then let the reader figure out was it both of them or one of them.

Because it's really improper for me to take a position on this that he didn't take. He refused to take a position. He didn't clarify.

He didn't say, DO BDE BAS YANG and he didn't say, CHE DAG MA BA'I YANG. He just said, moreover. So as a translator, I have to leave it unclear.

If I take a shot, by the way, some of you were doing this. Don't take a shot. If he doesn't take a shot, you don't take a shot.

Because it might be wrong. By the way, this gets into a huge translation principle thing. You can write appendices.

You can add things, but as a translation and not as an interpretation. Don't have a long two-page introduction to the appendix, which might have some statements in it which would not be acceptable to the author. Be careful.

We are the classic generation. It means we just translate. We don't interpret.

The next generation takes our translations and writes their own interpretations. And you might be the next generation. You might write your own Diamond Cutter business book, but the translation remains the translation.

Don't put your opinion in the translation. Okay? Because why?

It will shorten its lifespan. You're not Nagarjuna. You're not Choney Lama.

Let them talk. They knew more than us. Just translate them and give it to your reader.

If you want to write an interpretation, write it. But I would wager that it won't last as long as Nagarjuna. You see what I mean?

So don't infect the translation with your opinions. Which means, pretty much, don't say anything in the translation. Because there's a thing called Geshe standard.

It wouldn't hold up in a Geshe debate. Any of those sentences. Not a sentence would hold up in a Geshe debate.

But you don't know. So be careful. Introduce an appendix.

Say, you know, this is something we thought to add because it would help the reader. End of story. Then translate it.

But don't say, this proves the blah blah blah. And then you're going to get in trouble. And then the value of your translation gets less.

I wanted to throw in that ex-postulation thing. Be careful how you introduce your extra information. And that applies to your footnotes also.

That's why most of the footnotes are simply references to other texts. Anytime you make a statement of your opinion, trust me, half the time it's going to be indefensible. Or someone could poke at it.

So, as far as possible, stick to the sources. And then write a book of your own later. Which is fine.

And that's going to be more helpful for normal people than the translation. Cool? But don't mix them.

Because it'll kill the translation.

[Speaker 2]
So if you wanted to say as a translator, thinking about that you might want to help teach this to other people, do you do like a translator's cut? Like directors do a cut?

[Speaker 1]
Absolutely.

[Speaker 2]
Your version has those expository Yeah, absolutely.

[Speaker 1]
Totally legal. Totally wonderful. It's the first step to your own business book.

Is to, when you hold your classes, to teach your translation, those should be already bridging to your business book. Those can have your opinion. They should have your opinion.

And that's why I want you guys to teach a lot. To be honest, I don't want you to wait until you finish your book to start teaching it. Because as you teach it, people will ask you questions.

You'll be like, did that refer to both the lower schools or just one? And you're like, uh... And then the rest of your translation will be better.

You see what I mean? So I want you to teach it actively. Because it'll force you to think about it.

And then the rest of the translation will be better. Okay, so every Lam Rim retreat I'm going to have two or three of you teaching. There's going to be a list of you teaching at Diamond Mountain.

I know some of you can't come to Thailand, for example, but those of you who do go to Thailand, especially those of you who are native Chinese speakers, that's so cool if you can teach your text in Chinese to those people. The Mexico Lam Rim retreat, they are specifically asking for other teachers in the middle of the day. They want a big gap in the middle of the day.

And sort of the Dharma Festival if they weren't... You get to go to the book you're interested in. You don't have to listen to Lam Rim all day.

Just irritate some people. Thank you. Your text is hard.

Quick announcement. Please be very quiet at each step. Close doors and speak just for this break.

I'm sorry. I'm downstairs. I'm catching a lot of heat.

And we all want to come up for good quiet during our meditations.

[Speaker 2]
So just please try. Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you. That's what I'm going to do right now.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you for asking.

[Speaker 1]
Who's up next?