Медитации на пустоту: объяснение шагов к пониманию того, что ничто не является самим собой, занятие 30

[Speaker 1]
Today, I'm going to give you a brief introduction on how to do this, and then I'm going to give

[Speaker 2]
you a brief introduction on how to do this, and then I'm going to give you a brief introduction

[Speaker 1]
on how to do this, and then I'm going to give you a brief introduction on how to do this,

[Speaker 2]
So, remember we're still talking about how outer objects exist from the different philosophical positions, and we left in the middle of a debate between Mind-Only and the Law School. So in this debate, Mind-Only gives a split reason, pointing out what problems exist with the idea that an outer object is sending out replicas of itself.

And that's how you perceive things. And this reason, this split reason, has something to do with an enemy in the front. Does anyone remember what the two reasons are?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Because if you were to walk... Well, I know one. If you were to walk into a room and someone just won some money...

[Speaker 1]
No, no, no.

[Speaker 2]
That's the second... That's farther on in the debate.

[Speaker 1]
This is earlier on in the debate.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, okay. Oh.

[Speaker 1]
What's that? Oh, there's an oh from Taiwan.

[Speaker 2]
Here's the beginning of it. What is that? That's what I was about to say.

Oh, yeah. He lost. No.

This is the next part.

[Speaker 1]
This is what I was about to say. This is before that.

[Speaker 2]
It would appear... How could things appear...

[Speaker 1]
If outer things exist by sending replicas of themselves to your eyes...

[Speaker 2]
How could they appear...

[Speaker 1]
Then one person should always be sending out two replicas at the same time, because they are seen differently by two different people. One is their friend, one is their enemy. Okay?

[Speaker 2]
And it comes from the side of the object.

[Speaker 1]
So at any given time, a single object should be sending out nice images of itself, ugly images of itself, half-ugly, half-nice images of itself, you know, many, many tantric images of itself, you know, to different people.

[Speaker 2]
Mm-hmm. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
I like replica. I think that was a great choice of translation.

[Speaker 2]
It's a difficult...

[Speaker 1]
What is the Tibetan?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, you're nin now. No, it wasn't nin last time.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Nda. Rangda.

Likeness of itself. A likeness.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
Okay.

[Speaker 2]
So now we go into the question that Word wants to answer. All right. Okay, someone comes in and says, I won the debate.

So now what's going on? Next. Well, each person has a different reaction...

...to the announcement, right?

[Speaker 1]
They hear something different.

[Speaker 2]
They hear something desirable. One hears something desirable, one hears something undesirable. And one hears something undesirable.

One's like, anger.

[Speaker 1]
Why do you think he gave this second example?

[Speaker 2]
Because it's like what's happening in their lives regularly. It's like Chupa or the Ram? It has to be the other way.

Because Shantakirti gives it?

[Speaker 1]
He went from visible form to audible sound. And in the lower schools, audible sound is problematic. It's considered ineffable.

Because it passes so quickly. So in the lower schools, for example, the atoms required in a molecule, right? In the Abhidharmakosha, they leave out sound.

They don't count sound in the atoms that have to be in a molecule. Because sound is too ephemeral. And sound in words text was not allowed as...

[Speaker 2]
...as something that could be imprinted upon because it wasn't ephemeral.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, the alaya-vijnana, the foundation mind, the storehouse consciousness, cannot be made of stuff so flimsy as sound. But I believe your author added this argument about how you take what someone said to show that even sound is up to the beholder. Because it's a problematic thing with the lower schools.

They think sound is almost uncapturable because it goes by so fast. So if even that ephemeral sound is coming this way, then something that exists only for a millisecond has to be sending different good sounds, bad sounds. I like that he lost the game.

I'm sad that he lost the game to different people. It must be sending different sounds to different people listening to it who don't like the guy who lost or who do like the guy who lost. In the example, the sound was, he lost.

[Speaker 2]
What are three different meanings of doctrine?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, nice.

[Speaker 2]
Accommodation. Self.

[Speaker 1]
It to be itself. Two or more things which are one.

[Speaker 2]
And then another one?

[Speaker 1]
That was stupid.

[Speaker 2]
I said, well, the three that I'm looking for. He said two of the three I was looking for. Which two of the several that we mentioned?

Which two? The Mahatma and accommodation. About the thing itself.

So I'm looking for something other than...

[Speaker 1]
I think where she's going is, she doesn't want doc as a third one. She wants a different one. Essence.

[Speaker 2]
Entity.

[Speaker 1]
Entity. Yeah, good. Which doesn't imply self-nature.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, it doesn't.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it means an entity.

[Speaker 2]
I see.

[Speaker 1]
It doesn't imply a wrong entity or something like that. Right.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
So in that sense, dogmy is different from doctrine. Okay. You rarely use dogmy as a self-existent dog.

It's almost never. In Tibetan. If it means Atman, I guess you do.

[Speaker 2]
Dakshimakhe? Tonics. The imputation.

Right?

[Speaker 1]
After. After is okay.

[Speaker 2]
Chima. K is the cut, right? Chima.

[Speaker 1]
Kelen.

[Speaker 2]
It's accept.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Accepting outside objects as...

[Speaker 1]
This chi doesn't mean chilo. That's probably where you're tricking them, right?

[Speaker 2]
It means after, right?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. And this always refers to a...

[Speaker 2]
A reason. What's the topic?

[Speaker 1]
What kind of reason?

[Speaker 2]
Remember there was a split reason? That was part of a split reason? Did you agree to our latter?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it means the second half of a split reason. Whenever you say dakchima, it always means the latter. Okay.

Ooh, nasty.

[Speaker 2]
Directed from itself, from the outside.

[Speaker 1]
Not bad. Sul.

[Speaker 2]
Incoming.

[Speaker 1]
I like to call it artillery as incoming. Incoming artillery. The object is...

It's like sending a message. It's sending a message to you.

[Speaker 2]
This way.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, in their system. Yeah. It has to be.

The replica is surte. It's being delivered. Incoming.

[Speaker 2]
Incoming. Extra credit. Dran-min.

Enemy and the... Okay, an extra credit. This is an abbreviation of what phrase?

[Speaker 1]
Drop-o.

[Speaker 2]
Drop-o. Drop-o.

[Speaker 1]
Drop-o.

[Speaker 2]
Drop-o. Drop-o.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, cool. Nice question. Good question.

She got all the difficult things. All right. Yeah, it's a pretty nasty text.

She's doing a text on different emptiness meditations by Choney Lama. So we're trying to cover all the fields of Buddhism. He's Siddhanta.

Philosophical schools. She's Vinaya. He's Mr. Mind Only. Tang-tang is Sutras. Stanley is Abhidharma. Nick is Higher Middle Way.

Sugeng is Lower Middle Way. Seiji is Lojong. And she's practiced text meditation.

Sugeng is Lower Middle Way. Okay, yeah. Okay, Mr. Lower Middle Way. All right, go. Sugeng, you got the plane. Complain about something.

Come on. Nice key. Good.

Okay, I made some notes to myself, because this is kind of hard. Moreover, mikshe la ngomba nomba sarva de. When blue appears to your visual awareness.

Okay, I prefer to say awareness. I mean, I'm trying it out, like a pair of pants, you know. I'm just...

I think it's more comfortable for people than consciousness. Yeah. Rather than saying consciousness of the eye.

Because I don't think that will pass the waiter test. We call it the waiter test. Would a waiter easily understand it in a restaurant?

My eye consciousness is not so good. My awareness of this food? I don't know.

Okay, mikshe la ngomba nomba sarva de. When blue... When an image of blue makes its appearance to the visual awareness.

Okay, chiru dun kyi tepe namba mayin. It's not that an outer object is sending a likeness of itself to the eye. Okay, okay.

Right? Mayin. Because, yina?

Because if it were... Yeah, good. If it were, good.

So this is difficult. Mayin te? Yina?

So you've got to pause after the te. It's not that it's sending pictures to you because if it were... And now he's going to have some problems, okay?

Who thinks... Who believes the pictures being sent to you thing?

[Speaker 2]
The lower schools.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and a thing called science. Okay. Don't be nervous.

Things are bouncing off and coming to you. Okay, all right. Chikor.

[Speaker 2]
Chikor. Chikor. Chikor.

Chikor. Chikor. Chikor.

Chikor. Chikor. Chikor.

Chikor. Chikor. Chikor.

[Speaker 1]
Good.

[Speaker 2]
Good.

[Speaker 1]
Nice. Oh, okay. This is porpa.

Chuy porpa. What's a porpa? Yeah, a bowl.

Specifically the bowl that a monk brings to the assembly to get their food. Porpa. It's funny, some monks bowls like this big.

It's supposed to be about this big but you see these guys pull it out. So, chupor? Yeah, a bowl of water because they use it for drinking also.

They use it for a drinking cup also. Chuporpa. This was difficult for me because I thought, at first I thought it was a lala with an instrumental but Chen can't come after that.

You see? You can't be by some having. So, you have to read it kang la, lechen.

Meaning a being who has certain karma, okay? Like semchen, sentient being or whatever. A person has a mind.

Lechen.

[Speaker 2]
Well, they're calling a being a lechen?

[Speaker 1]
Well, no, because we're talking about three different types of beings as karma holders. Vessels of karma, maybe. Okay, lechen.

Ki, and he has three sitting around there. You okay? Yeah, two, one water bowl.

Chup. Kang means here, chakanchi. Chakanchi.

How you tell a foreigner speaking Tibetan, they say, chaki kayo chikte, please give me a cup of tea. But in Tibetan you just say chakanchi. Give me a full of tea.

Okay? Can you give me a full of tea? Because tea is central to Tibetan culture.

If you know how to ask for a cup of tea, they'll think you're cool. So you just say chakanchi. Can I have a full of tea?

And you don't say cup. You don't use the word for a cup. Okay?

Kang means full. Full. Purna.

Okay, Kangpao is a famous Abhidharma author, for example. Purna Vandana. Okay, Kang, so looking, three beings with different karmas, okay, that's the implication.

Look at a single bowl of water, meaning bowl full of water, okay? And the three are a hla, a mi, and a yida. Yeah, good.

And this is an unusual, you don't see it much, wasur. Wasur. Yeah, and sometimes you see it spelled this way.

Well, I can't do it without the Tibetan. Sometimes you see it without the wasur. But that's illegal in Tibetan orthography.

Why? You have to have the wasur. But it's often spelled without it.

You can't have tea without a sauce? No, you can, that's the problem.

[Speaker 2]
Wait, it confuses it with another word?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it's ambiguous, because it could be with bliss. Gawe. You see?

Gay. D-G-A. You see what I mean?

So wasur is used to indicate the main letter. Okay, if it weren't there, G would be the main letter. You see what I mean?

Yeah, so you often see it misspelled. You often see people don't use the wasur. Okay, otherwise it could mean happy mind or something like that.

Okay, with a happy mind.

[Speaker 2]
But this one, I don't know, you'd have to be in grade school for kindergarten.

[Speaker 1]
Well, there are places in scripture where it's very frustrating, because you sit there and you think it's by bliss for ten minutes, and then you realize they misspelled you that. But you can't have a secondary suffix on the word where the root letter has no vowel or letter? Yeah, you can, unfortunately.

[Speaker 2]
Like gay, like bi. It's not a secondary suffix.

[Speaker 1]
No, you could have rocks, R-A-G-S. Ricks, as opposed to Rick.

[Speaker 2]
But it's got a vowel.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, but there's rocks. We're going to have it today, I think. Okay, anyway, so you've got a sitting around the table playing poker is who?

A deva, a human, and a preta.

[Speaker 2]
What's the English word that you use for preta?

[Speaker 1]
I use, I don't like to use hungry ghost.

[Speaker 2]
You have to say craving spirit.

[Speaker 1]
I use craving spirit, because that's really what a yidak is. It's not necessarily hungry. For example, there are many stories, the story of the guy whose son ate him because he was a fish, and the mother was born as a dog in the house.

And you see, if they are born, if they have a desire for their residence, then when they die, they're born as an animal in that residence, or as a preta. And that's why you get haunted houses and stuff like that. It's often someone who spent a lot of time and money to build a special house, and then they get attached to it.

Chik chak du tepe tse.

[Speaker 2]
Simultaneously look at this.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and this should have been ki. And there is such a thing as a lazy ki where you just use a genitive. There is such a thing, but it's sloppy.

What did Dwight Whitney call it? Slovenly. Okay, not quite slovenly.

Chik chak du tepe tse.

[Speaker 2]
They're both looking at the same time, at the same instance?

[Speaker 1]
Sim. All three of them are looking at the same bowl at the same time. Chik chak du, at the same time.

Tepe, they are looking. Chud de la. Yeah, that water looks like deathless nectar, amrita.

Please never say amrita or Krishna. There's no such person as Krishna. It's Krishna, and it's amrita.

There's no such thing as amrita, and there's no such thing as Krishna. It's not spelled that way. It would be a ka with an r, and it's not.

It's a vocabulary ka. Kirsh, i-r, Krishna. Everyone mispronounces that.

Even the people who follow Krishna call him Krishna. Anyway, because of the British, okay, as happened in so many countries. Chud de, like Hong Kong.

Chud de la la.

[Speaker 2]
To the person it's water.

[Speaker 1]
To the human, they're all persons. To the human it's water. Yi da la.

Nak means pass, yeah, of it. So towards ya, yi ki nam pa thade. They have different impressions of a single entity.

Now we're expecting a proof. Now we get his assertion. Here comes the assertion.

What was the reason?

[Speaker 2]
Because they all have separate...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, because three different types of beings have three different types of perceptions towards a single object. That proves line four.

[Speaker 2]
They don't exist as the same. You can't say that they are the same thing.

[Speaker 1]
What's this whole section that she's been on for a couple of weeks now? It's chidan, chidan, chirulkidan. Okay, got it?

Now what's it say? Yeah, yeah, therefore they don't exist as outer objects. Why?

Because one thing is appearing in three different ways to three different people in their mind. Okay, got it? Therefore, it must be the case.

Who's the de?

[Speaker 2]
The lower schools, the two lower schools. Yeah, we say.

[Speaker 1]
Therefore, we say, okay? De means we say. Therefore, we say there was never three outer objects.

There were no outer objects. Who's talking?

[Speaker 2]
Asanga.

[Speaker 1]
Asanga. It is Mainomitan. If you're not sure, look at the path.

Due to Ted's amazing program, it gives you the path. By the way, we have to fix all the Sanskrit here. That's something Christina can do in your free time someday.

It's only 4,700 books.

[Speaker 2]
Can we go back up to the third one?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
What purpose is the ni?

[Speaker 1]
You tell me.

[Speaker 2]
Well, because you associated the de with ni, right?

[Speaker 1]
Why did he put ni here? It either shows emphasis or he's making meter. Ba da, ba da, ba da, da da.

Ba da, ba da. That's all. I would say it's for meter.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, so it makes it confusing to me. Like, okay, so how they...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
He's just putting ni altogether.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, okay, I understand. It's okay. It could have been.

It could have been. But I think he's making meter. Now, what's the SOP for a quotation?

[Speaker 2]
We have to go and make sure it's done correctly?

[Speaker 1]
Commander Foley taught us yesterday. What standard operating procedure? Go find it in the Kangyur Tangyur and make sure they spelled it right because about 40% of the time it's not spelled right and it changes the meaning.

[Speaker 2]
And find context, right?

[Speaker 1]
We had three mistakes in one verse yesterday. Yeah, so first go to the Tangyur with this amazing search program and make sure they spelled it right because it's so frustrating. It's frustrating.

You spend half an hour translating a verse and then you find out it's wrong and you have to throw it out the translation and do it over again. Okay, so here we go. We're going to go check it.

There you go. There's your illegal spelling of nidak. Because the same Tibetan letters could have been typed this way.

You see what I mean? By the typist. They would have been correct.

[Speaker 2]
But as you pointed out, it would be the same problem with drop. With a what?

[Speaker 1]
No, yeah, it does have to have a... No, R is never a prefix letter.

[Speaker 2]
But it could be a head letter.

[Speaker 1]
No, but it would be piled on top. There would be no vowel between them. How would a typist then know?

This typist knew. This typist wrote the right thing. But if they had written DGAS, we could not have docked their pay because it was illegal.

It's the guy who carved the Tangier made a boo-boo. We've got to dock the pay of the guy in Derge. The rest is the same.

All right. Now, I want to point out something. It always...

I always felt uncomfortable with... Wasn't Chinle Lama or Kedrup Dhammadagya explaining the cup of water, glass of water, which is called what? Each classical debate in the yikchas, in the monastic textbooks, has its own name.

Like my pre-Geshe debate was Jamsung. It has its own name. The book, Maitreya book.

But it's a debate about is Maitreya a tantric deity or a bodhisattva? Okay. So each debate has its own name.

What's the name of this debate in the yikchas? Chumbap. The waterfall.

The waterfall. Because classically it's about a preta who runs up to a river and suddenly sees pus when they get close. Okay?

And then the author in the ACI course said one cup of water was appearing... Yeah, it had three parts. And it was appearing to this guy this way, and it was appearing to this guy this way, and it was appearing to this guy this way.

What school believes that?

[Speaker 2]
We do. No. No, I don't think...

Well, it's not a glass of water that we're talking about.

[Speaker 1]
But isn't this what we're fighting against this whole couple of pages? The idea of it sends an image to you. And, you know, if the friend and the enemy walk in the same room, then the thing the guy says has to split, so he can hear something bad and he can hear something good.

[Speaker 2]
Problematic, isn't it?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I always had a problem with that. It always felt uncomfortable to me. What school was that text?

Supposedly... Chimbap. Where does Chimbap come from?

Lower middle. I think it's lower middle. No, it might be higher.

[Speaker 2]
I think it is.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, Umichigun?

[Speaker 2]
I think it's Umichigun. Well, he wrote both. He wrote both.

I don't remember where it is.

[Speaker 1]
No, he wrote Chidin and Itachi for the higher school and he wrote it Umichigun.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, anyway, I think it's uncomfortable.

[Speaker 1]
I think it's uncomfortable. I don't think he should have said it that way. It always felt uncomfortable to me.

Yeah, the idea that it splits and it's like a Chinese... Which one? Entering the Middle Way.

Oh, man. It's like a Chinese dinner. That thing that goes around with the food on it.

You see, oh, you're a human. Oh, let me turn it. You need human food.

Anyway, I always felt uncomfortable with it. I don't see much difference between that and South Tractica.

[Speaker 2]
The absurd thing we're complaining about.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah. I don't feel comfortable with it. Anyway, there you go.

Probably there's some other qualifier. To be honest, I don't think Chandrakirti would just make a mistake like that. So, here we go.

Okay, go. Okay, cool. We saw, we were looking at, there's another group translating books, and we were looking at it today, and they're starting with the Kangyur.

And I would never do that because it's very vague. It's very vague, and it's very difficult to read. If you don't study a lot of commentaries before that, you shouldn't be going to the sutras.

You will mistranslate it. And they're not philosophical texts. Somebody asked me, Miroj asked me, why are you guys not working on the 8,000 verses?

Why didn't you ask me to input the 8,000 verses Sanskrit? And I said, it's useless for us. We can't use that book.

He's like, what? You know, it's all stories. It's just stories, okay?

There's no philosophy per se in there. There's a lot of stories about how the guy went to get the philosophy. Like, ever-weeping and people.

Okay, prarudita. Sada prarudita. Like, sadashiva.

Always shiva. So anyway, but here's an exception. What I want to say is, here's an exception.

Here's a very sexy sutra coming up, which if I'm a mind-only school guy, I'm like, read this. You know? It's not me.

It's not my school. Look, it's Buddha's then. Okay, so I'm kind of excited that, so he just quoted two lines, and I went and got like four or five verses for you, because it's so sexy.

It's definitely, if I'm a mind-only guy, I will throw that in people's face. And it's the Lankavatara. Very famous sutra.

[Speaker 2]
The Journey to Lanka.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, somebody, you know, as we go on as a group, you will say, oh, that's definitely not, you know. Just be aware it's a ten-year thing. Okay, like, you will lose a lot of hair before you finish that one.

Okay. Shengyang. Chirukidunmede.

There are no objects. There are no objects. Tsung dzin mik she sok la.

When you are aware of a color green, okay, yul kyi nam pa na tsog pa de, and you see red, and you see green, and you see straight, and you see circular, all that variety, na tsog, of images that come to you, nam pa, from the object, all the variety of aspects of the object, de dang der nangwa ni, when each one makes its appearance, okay, to you, what's really happening is, the mind itself is taking on aspects, is arising with certain aspects, nam pa chen du kye, okay, the mind itself, consciousness itself, shepa nang, the various awarenesses, sense consciousness, you can say, the smell and the colors, this whole variety is not out there. It's just different aspects arising in your own consciousness, okay, got it? shepa dang de, de dang de, de dang de here means that particular, that particular aspect, the color, the green, the red, the smell, the taste, okay, it's just the mind taking on different aspects, it's not coming from the outside, it's not inspired by the outside, the mind itself is just taking on these aspects, okay, got it?

Then to prove that, he uses lung or rikpa?

[Speaker 2]
Lung.

[Speaker 1]
Lung, he proves it with a scriptural quotation, okay?

[Speaker 2]
So kyepa is?

[Speaker 1]
The mind takes on, personally I would say takes on.

[Speaker 2]
So chen du kye.

[Speaker 1]
Takes on an aspect, yeah. It's just the mind taking on different aspects. Why?

[Speaker 2]
Because it's not coming from outside.

[Speaker 1]
Because the breten opened.

[Speaker 2]
Because of the breten, yeah. And the goshi, it imprints.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, the bakchaks opened in the goshi.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, in the goshi.

[Speaker 1]
Okay.

[Speaker 2]
And the smirables.

[Speaker 1]
The smirables opened.

[Speaker 2]
On the kunshi.

[Speaker 1]
Something like that. Dare tell? It is that way.

Yes, it's that way. Because langar shekpa le.

[Speaker 2]
Go ahead.

[Speaker 1]
Again.

[Speaker 2]
Whether or not appearance of outer objects. Oh, sorry.

[Speaker 1]
What's it say?

[Speaker 2]
There are no appearances of outer objects. Outer objects don't appear. What?

[Speaker 1]
Whether or not outer objects. Yeah, there is no. Things are not appearing on the outside.

There is no such thing. In modern colloquial, yomare. Yomare.

It means you met. And it gets corrupted to yomare. There is no such thing.

You met. Yomare. Say yomare.

Yomare. You know, is someone going to give you guys a donation? Yomare.

You know, there is nobody showing up. By the way, the Follies gave us 25,000 yesterday for the storage facility. And 10,000 for Miroj.

So that we can have a second Sanskrit entry center in probably where you will find the most surviving Sanskrit in different scripts, but still Sanskrit written in different scripts, like Coptic.

[Speaker 2]
Coptic is... Like Coptic for Christianity. No, not in Coptic.

[Speaker 1]
No, like Coptic. Coptic is Greek and Egyptian letters. Check it out.

Nothing is appearing from the outside. That's all. There ain't nothing.

There ain't nothing. There ain't nothing appearing from the outside. Yomare.

Why? What's happening? The mind is taking on various appearances.

Not so pleasant. The variety. And sometimes the world is called in Buddhism the great rainbow of things.

You see what I mean? That's what sometimes means. The multitude of variety.

It means all the stuff in the world. This great kaleidoscope of... It means that.

This great kaleidoscope of things we see, smell, hear. It's all just changes inside the mind.

[Speaker 2]
When you say Yomare, because in my text Yomare kept coming up as whether or not.

[Speaker 1]
No, it can mean that. But yeah, in your text it's totally different. Where did it come up in your text?

[Speaker 2]
In the ten distinctions between the...

[Speaker 1]
The two Madhyamaka schools. In that case, Yomare means whether or not there exists a... Vrangupita.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Self-evident reason.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, does there exist a logic which has its own efficacy or not. And then we got on the sidetrack, which is going to take us like a year.

[Speaker 2]
So in this case is Yomare the exact same thing as me?

[Speaker 1]
Exact same spelling, but no. Yeah, it isn't me. But it's emphatic.

It's more emphatic. It ain't nothing at all. Yomare.

No such thing. It means no such thing. Yomare means no such thing.

[Speaker 2]
And then the te is just neither?

[Speaker 1]
No, it's very important here.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yinte. He finishes Drupje Chö. He finishes the qualities he's trying to prove.

And then he says, here's my reason. Because you always introduce the reason with te. Colon.

There ain't no outer objects. Colon. Te.

It means because.

[Speaker 2]
Instead of the tel.

[Speaker 1]
It announces the arrival of the reason. The third element in the proof, in the syllogism.

[Speaker 2]
Mishela, how did these pre-17th century scholars speak Egyptian?

[Speaker 1]
There's some language down there, but I believe they use Greek letters for Egyptian. How's that?

[Speaker 2]
They did do that for years.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. We are opening an input center in Nepal because there are three different scripts in which Sanskrit was written there. And we believe we've identified 3,000 books in Sanskrit, which is very cool.

His input's 625. Okay, here we go. I went and got you this sutra.

We must be close.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you. Nine minutes.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, good. How many lines?

[Speaker 2]
It's a long one.

[Speaker 1]
One, two, three. One, two, three, four, five. You know, this is kind of just dessert.

I don't know if you're going to end up using it in your footnote. I might, if it were me, just to show off, which I do sometimes. But I think, as I remember, the Mind-Only School uses this sutra a lot.

So I think, let's get up close and personal with this sutra. And it will give you a better appreciation of the history of this viewpoint. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
I just looked it up. It's like 250 pages. So if anyone's getting squirrely ideas about how to translate that.

[Speaker 1]
250. By the way, always multiply times five. Yeah, 1,250 pages of English, if you're up for it.

Illumination took me about five years to do the first 500 pages. Call it 12 and a half years, if you know what you're doing. Okay, here we go.

[Speaker 2]
Sipa, yangzhor, nangzhorbe. Tawa, tang, jek, nang, tokbe. Tok, tang, tapad, pangpade.

Kinik, mekewa, mepani. Sem, sam, tu, yange, yange. She, to, to, nongme.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, wait, wait, let's do that piece. SHIBA NYAL DROD NYAL DROD PA'I LTA BA THAMS CAD RNAMS SDOG PA'I I don't know what number four is. He's making a list, OK?

But NYAL DROD NYAL DROD PA'I LTA BA THAMS CAD RNAMS SDOG PA'I. The yogi who denies all views of yogis.

[Speaker 2]
Talking about the Buddha, I guess?

[Speaker 1]
I don't know. SDOG DANG LTA BA RNAMS PA'AM PA They eliminate imagination and what is imagined. There's MIG MED KHYER BA, MIG MED TSE BA'I DE'I CHEN, comes from the Sutra.

MIG MED KHYER BA MED PA NI. They believe MIG MED, they believe KHYER BA MED PA. They believe, by the way, you're going to, I want you to tell me later who stole these verses.

Who plagiarized these verses, OK? MIG MED, there are no outer objects. There's nothing you can focus on.

MIG PA MED and KHYER BA MED.

[Speaker 2]
And nothing starts.

[Speaker 1]
What I say, NGES, by me, said. What I say, SEMS DANG. Yeah, everything is mind only.

Who's talking? The Buddha. What I say is SEMS DANG.

What I, you want my opinion? Mind only. Want my opinion?

Mind only. Want my opinion? Mind only.

The whole world is mind only. What do I say? Mind only.

One, two, three, four, five times. OK? Oh, Mr. Madhyamika, how many times you got to hear it?

The Buddha said mind only, not us. We're just following the Buddha. I wish you would.

Got it? It's a good thing Mr. Wu's not here today. What?

It's a good thing Mr. Wu's not here today. Yeah, I hear it say, yay. OK.

By the way, historically, the mind only was very strong. When the great Chinese scholars came to India, they left. And then the Middle Way grew strong.

And some Middle Way texts didn't make it to China. OK. OK.

Go ahead.

[Speaker 2]
NGON MED NGON MED NYAM PAR BA NGON DANG NGON MED NAM PAR BA DE BZHIN SEMS LAS GRUB PA This is for Shanti. SEMS SANG GRUB YANG MED ZHIG OK.

[Speaker 1]
This is very similar to DU SHES MED DU SHES MED MYIN, which is what?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, it means nothing and nothing.

[Speaker 1]
Which level?

[Speaker 2]
The highest.

[Speaker 1]
Fourth. What's it called?

[Speaker 2]
There is nothing and there's not nothing. Not nothing and not nothing. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, there's no discriminating and there's no non-discriminating. In practical terms, what are you supposed to do during that meditation?

[Speaker 2]
Anything comes in and just let it go.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, just let it go. Don't try to block it. Let your mind go.

If something comes, don't watch it. If nothing comes, that's nice. OK.

Fourth formless realm meditation. Desirable or not?

[Speaker 2]
Only if you want to go to hell for three months.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, only if you want to go to hell. Extremely dangerous. Extremely dangerous.

Three and four, formless realms three and four. Very famous. What's the third?

[Speaker 2]
No, it's actually qi yang me.

[Speaker 1]
Qi yang me. Try to block all thoughts. Try not to think about anything.

The two famous mistakes, and extremely famous. So anyway, here's the same structure. There is nothing, and it's not that there's nothing.

Nothing exists, and it's not that there's nothing. Same structure as the fourth formless realm. By the way, are you not supposed to use that meditation?

Yeah, practice it to develop your mental strength. And then go to the real one. First do the lion's stance, but don't stop there.

Go to emptiness. Go to dependent origination. Nge dang nge me nampa pang.

Give up the idea that there could be anything, or that there's nothing. Give up those ideas. De shin sem le chu ni.

[Speaker 2]
You will be liberated from your mind.

[Speaker 1]
You will be liberated from your mind. He should have taught yoga. Is this the Buddha?

Yeah. Sem san dang tu yang nge she tu. Nge she tu.

I repeat. I say again. It's all your mind.

It's just the mind. Mind only. OK?

What's this? What's this tu? What grammar case?

Yeah, te ni grammar case. Te, te ni grammar case. Meaning, it is all the mind.

You see? It is all the mind. See?

If you didn't have the tu, it wouldn't make sense. All of that stuff is the natsal, the kaleidoscope of things you see in your life. It exists as the mind.

It is all only the mind. OK, got it? Sem san dang tu yang nge she tu.

You want to be liberated from your mind.

[Speaker 2]
OK, go. Sem san dang tu yang nge she tu. Natsok gi nu nang ni.

Sem san tu yang nge she tu.

[Speaker 1]
Now he just uses some synonyms for emptiness. Te shin ni. Suchness.

Kind of like suchness. Dong ba.

[Speaker 2]
Empty.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, sometimes emptiness is called ta, the end of all things. OK? Sometimes it's referred to as ka, anta, the end of all things.

Yang en de. Yeah, but here it means rang shin gi yang en de.

[Speaker 2]
Natsok nirvana.

[Speaker 1]
Which means emptiness. So these are all, he's throwing out, I call it suchness. I call it emptiness.

I call it the end of all things. I call it natsok nirvana. I call it chukyi.

The realm of is.

[Speaker 2]
OK?

[Speaker 1]
All this stuff. Natsok yukyi. Nu nang ni.

I looked up lu because I was uncomfortable with it. Everybody repeats it. It's apparently correct.

[Speaker 2]
The body of stuff?

[Speaker 1]
I think it means physical manifestations. The multifarious manifestations of the mind. OK?

Meaning, but he wants to say physical stuff, lu. He uses the word kaya. Like the corpus?

Yeah, the corpus. The physical, all this physical stuff is just different pictures in your mind. Semdzang duyam ne serdo.

Yeah, I repeat to you, it's all just the mind.

[Speaker 2]
Allison said it's time to stop.

[Speaker 1]
Come on, one more.

[Speaker 2]
Allison.

[Speaker 1]
No, she won't stand for it. We're hot, it's getting hot. Oh, it's your technique?

[Speaker 2]
No, no, no, I'm just, not I.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, no, no, no, no. There's probably some vowel against that.

[Speaker 2]
Semdzang duyam ne serdo. Semdzang duyam ne serdo.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, namto bachar drelwayi. All these thoughts in your head are just connected to bachak. OK?

Nato semmey jungway te. All the variety of the world comes from variety in your mind. Ni namlani chirom nam.

When outer objects appear to people, jiktenpay semdzang mo. It's just the minds of the world. Now, here he specifically referred to Chudokitan.

Yeah, so if I'm mind only, I'm like, duh. I mean, he said it specifically. He said it specifically.

Outer objects are just manifestations of your mind. Okay. Very sexy sutra.

I would throw it into your book.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, so jikten pa means...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, jikten pa means... How does it differ from jikten? Or li.

People of the world. See, here it makes it people.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, people.

[Speaker 1]
Jikten means the world. And loka. And then jikten pa means denizens of the world, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, so I'm sorry. And then how does... what's he doing with that?

It's just the mind only of the people of the world? It's just the mind of the people of the world?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it's nothing more than...

[Speaker 2]
It's nothing more than the mind of the people of the world?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah. It's nothing more than... You know, your job is to make it mystical.

And I bought you guys... You know, I wrote a book with a Muslim author. And I want to invite him to America to give talks because he's a beautiful man.

And I thought it would be good for Americans. America? Yeah.

So he's the fifth best-selling author in Russia. He's sold 30 million books. He's an amazing author.

And we wrote a book together. But I was thinking to bring him here and have him give talks. And then it turns out he's a Rumi expert.

And he's a Sufi dance expert. And I'm like, wow, we could really make a show out of this. And then I looked up the Rumi translation by Coleman, whatever his name.

It's like book number 10 on Amazon. It has sold enough copies that every other American owns a copy. Okay?

It's amazing. And he doesn't speak Arabic. He doesn't read Arabic.

He takes English translations and he messes with them. And he makes them cool. So something like this, go for it.

Pretend you don't know Tibetan.

[Speaker 2]
That's not hard.

[Speaker 1]
Make it, you know. Because sometimes we are what we call the classical period. In translation schools in history, there's the classical period and there's the commentarial period.

We happen to be in the classical period. We get to translate the originals, which I would rather be. I don't want to be a graduate student who looks into the use of some in a book.

I'm so happy to be in the first generation. But this is a classic place to do the Coleman thing. But will we be able to?

Norbyakov, he could do it. You know, he's very good at changing things into, you know. You're going to have to rewrite.

You guys are going to have to translate your books. And then you're going to have to write a second book called the Diamond Cutter Business Book or something. You see, you're going to have to write, what do you call that?

Secondary literature. Derivative literature. Yeah, and that has to be, that's going to sell 10 million.

Because this is not. Okay? These texts, if you sell, you're going to sell one to your mom, one to your dad, one to your best friend.

I usually buy 10 myself to pump up the numbers. Okay. Chanting.

Chanting. Shmogey dogey.

[Speaker 2]
Make my knees real please, so walk quietly please.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, people are meditating downstairs.

[Speaker 2]
They're meditating, so try to be mindful of how loud your steps are.