Медитации на пустоту: объяснение шагов к пониманию того, что ничто не является самим собой, занятие 36

[Speaker 2]
Today, I'm going to give you a brief introduction to the Sankhya Practice, and then I'm going to give you a brief introduction to the Sankhya Practice, and then I'm going to give you a brief introduction to the Sankhya Practice, and then I'm going to give you a brief introduction Can I have one?

[Speaker 1]
Just one green one.

[Speaker 2]
That one is with protein. That's okay.

[Speaker 1]
Protein's okay. What's katsum mean? Katsum.

[Speaker 2]
It's a mouth.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it is a mouth. Katsum means shut up. So I was defining Sarsipurki as katsum.

Not really.

[Speaker 2]
We're in the midst of this metaphor that's been going on for two classes now, and we'll continue in this class, which is about the magician. There's three beings and how they relate to an object that appears to them. It's a stick.

It's Wile E. Coyote. Okay, what are the three main characters in the magician?

The magician, the person, the audience, and the elephant or horse.

[Speaker 1]
Horse, elephant.

[Speaker 2]
Magician and what? Spectator.

[Speaker 1]
She said horse, elephant, and magician.

[Speaker 2]
I said the odd order. I did not.

[Speaker 1]
In that order. The one who came later. Just kidding.

[Speaker 2]
The rubber necker.

[Speaker 1]
Bonus. Shuriken pull. Hundred dollars?

For the first one. No, I don't have three dollars.

[Speaker 2]
The onlooker. The rubber necker in Tibetan.

[Speaker 1]
Nice. The Tibetan looks nice. So far.

[Speaker 2]
And the late comer. Chima.

[Speaker 1]
Chima?

[Speaker 2]
You don't know?

[Speaker 1]
I don't think there is a word for that. That's okay.

[Speaker 2]
That's what Chimi Ami is.

[Speaker 1]
The later onlooker. That is more like an adverb though. You see, laterly.

Anyway, okay.

[Speaker 2]
Describe the mistakes going on in the minds of the onlookers as opposed to the late comers. Onlookers, they see something, they see an elephant or a horse, and they believe it. They see that it's coming from a stick and they believe that it's coming.

They think as it seems. The eyes are influenced by the powder and the mantra.

[Speaker 1]
Say again?

[Speaker 2]
The eyes are influenced by the powder and the mantra. The mind is influenced by the powder and the mantra.

[Speaker 1]
They see and they believe what they see, which is not correct. The late comers don't see anything.

[Speaker 2]
The onlookers.

[Speaker 1]
She said the current onlooker.

[Speaker 2]
The late comers don't see anything. I know, that's what I'm saying. They see an elephant or a horse.

They don't know it's going to do it. They don't know it's just a trunk stapled onto a horse. How might a follower of the Independent Branch of the Middle Way answer the famous poem, if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, nice question. No, the next tree.

[Speaker 2]
He would say, right. I have a question about that question. I hear that the definition of existing thing is anything that can be perceived like an existent being.

[Speaker 1]
It is actually. You see, there's a classic definition of existing thing, which is Tseme Mikpa Yopay Tsenyi, right? That which can be perceived by an accurate perception.

It's the definition of existence. But it doesn't answer the question of the forest thing. Yeah, nobody heard it.

An omniscient being will hear it, only the forest does not. Yeah, in the very subtle authors will add the word omniscient being. The good authors will add the word omniscient being.

[Speaker 2]
He doesn't have to be around. Then it will exist. That tree will make sound because an omniscient being can hear it, only the forest does not.

[Speaker 1]
What he's saying is, there never falls a tree in the forest that somebody doesn't perceive. That's his argument.

[Speaker 2]
And in your premise, there is a tree that did fall in the forest. And so the only way to make your premise possible is to assume that some enlightened being saw it.

[Speaker 1]
Okay.

[Speaker 2]
I suppose this has no English equivalent. It's true. I don't accept that you would assume that.

[Speaker 1]
We found it yesterday in the front parking lot. There was a dew of wood. We should have brought it in.

I'll look for it today.

[Speaker 2]
But we didn't want to scare anybody that there was an elephant in the room. It's not a little stick. What does it mean?

The foundation of the illusion. Oh, this one's already shown.

[Speaker 1]
Omni-inique being.

[Speaker 2]
A hundred dollars. Okay, bonus. What is the synonym to that?

[Speaker 1]
Whoa, that's hard.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, yeah. That's pretty cool. It is one.

Yeah, look at that. More coffee.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, good. It's not affecting it anymore. The law of diminishing returns.

If it's like that. Yeah, if it's that way. There you go.

Nice. Who said that? Gibson.

God.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you very much for your attention. Yay. Cool.

Next class.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, push this button. Annihilation. We couldn't watch it, would we?

We could. But. We will resist the temptation.

[Speaker 2]
I saw it. It's an elephant. Yeah, we are stupid.

Annihilation. Annihilation is dumb as hell. I'm looking at stories.

I don't know.

[Speaker 1]
I didn't look. I'll look.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, maybe that's someone.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Please read Seiji has the plane. I give the plane to someone who's awake at the time.

How do we establish that things exist, right? So, things like visible forms, colors and shapes and sounds. Things you can see and things you can hear.

Sometimes you can translate those as things you can see and things you can hear. Are established as existing by appearing. Okay?

By. GONE. Okay?

By appearing to the sense awareness. Sense consciousness. Which holds them.

Okay? If they appear. If a red color appears to the consciousness of the eye, which perceives a red color, then that can be said to exist.

Okay? You okay? You alright?

Yeah. If a red color appears to the awareness of what you see, then that red color can be said to exist. In this school.

Okay? Okay. DE BZHIN DU.

In the same way, PHYIR THAM BYED KYANG. Every other thing there might be. Okay?

Is established by its appearing to its corresponding state of mind. Okay? And you should learn the idiom DE DANG DE.

DE DANG DE. Its particular corresponding state of mind. So, you know.

DE DANG DE. Whichever it might be. DE DANG DE.

Okay? So you should learn DE DANG DE. DE DANG DE would be a good word on your next quiz.

Okay? DE DANG DE. Because otherwise it's kind of strange.

And you probably would mistranslate it. Okay. Okay.

Yeah. Whichever it may be. Corresponding consciousness.

Okay. Seiji, come on. The nice people can't fly planes.

It's so weird, man.

[Speaker 2]
The nice people can't fly planes. It's so weird, man.

[Speaker 1]
Cigmore.

[Speaker 2]
Cigmore. Cigmore. Cool.

[Speaker 1]
So he's relating each part of the metaphor to actual life, right? And now he's going to talk about the people who came later. Okay?

MIG MA LAD PA. Those whose eyes have not been infected, they neither have—go to the merpa at the end of the first line—they neither have, it doesn't appear to them, and they don't believe in it, the appearance of this little stick as a horse or an elephant. And that's parallel to, in real life, jitawa here means the way things are, it's an idiom for the way things are, meaning ultimate reality.

So jitawa, ngun sum du tope pakpa, what's that mean? Ngun sum du tope pakpa. Arya in the direct perception of emptiness.

Now, in the lower middle way school, lower branch of the middle way school, you've got to be a little careful about using the word emptiness, because it's only the subtle form of the lack of self to things, or something like that. You can't use it about people, for example, so you have to be careful, and in the Abhidharma school you have to be careful. So, you know, when we talk at DCI, or we talk to each other, we say emptiness, but the word emptiness is used universally only by the highest branch of the middle way school.

Other people will say no self-existence, or non-real, unreal, okay, got it? And which is what happens here, okay? Yes, yes, okay, singho is an important idiom, what's it mean, singho la, singho.

Here, singho... Yeah, this is a polite word for to see, to his perceptions. So you have to translate it as, to his perceptions.

Not really. to his perceptions of that Arya, who's in the direct perception, not afterwards. During his direct perception, or her, what appears to their senses, what appears to their perceptions, there's neither a belief or an appearance of things as being real, dendrup.

Okay? So what's the dendrup in this parallel, you know? What's the dendrup in the metaphor?

In the metaphor. Yeah, the elephant. Ta-lang.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
See? And then what's the appearance of dendrup? No, the appearance as an elephant or a horse.

See, grammatically you can get the parallels here. Okay? There's two pieces here.

How the person who came later saw the illusion, and how the Arya is seeing things as existing really, in truth. And you can just do it grammatically. Ta-lang relates to?

What comes later in the sentence? Yeah, good. So you could draw a line from ta-lang to dendrup.

Du? Ki. He said ki, okay?

He should have said dendrup tu. Then nang? It's nang.

Shen is shen. Ni-ka-me-do. Ni-ka-me-do.

The Arya, in the direct perception of emptiness, doesn't have anything real appearing to him or her, and they don't believe in it either. Okay. Got it?

Yes, but where do you work yeshe? Pakpa yeshe is kind of like a mikmalepa. Okay?

The wisdom of the Arya is the eyes which are not infected. Okay? Cool?

It's a cool, you know, it would be nice to just chart it like this, with pins. Okay?

[Speaker 2]
Red string.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and this is kind of the most difficult part of the metaphor. You see, it's kind of weird. The guy who comes later doesn't see anything.

So kind of saying an Arya doesn't see anything, like he's the most ignorant one of the three. He doesn't know what's going on. He walks up and says, what's going on?

You know? All right? I mean, it's kind of, that part of the metaphor is a little uncomfortable to me.

It is. Yeah. I'm just saying, to compare him to the guy who comes later, and he's going, what's going on?

Why is everybody yelling? You know, like he doesn't see anything. He doesn't see any appearance, and he doesn't have any belief in it, and he doesn't know what the magician did.

You know, he's the most ignorant of everyone there. But he's the Arya. To me, it's a little, you know, the metaphor doesn't hold in all aspects.

Or maybe someone who doesn't see a second husband in the kitchen is the smartest person in the kitchen. Right? Okay?

Anyway, don't forget. That's the part you normally forget when you're explaining this metaphor to somebody. You kind of forget that the guy who came later is the Arya.

It seems like the magician should be the Arya. You know? The magician's the smart guy.

He's making everything happen. But he's not the Arya. Who is the magician?

Nice. Nice. Which is probably going to come next.

Which is probably going to come next. What's this translation principle called? Yeah, I know what's supposed to come next.

Let's see if the words fit my expectations. Then you can translate it easier. It's a lot easier than trying to figure it out from the beginning.

Okay? The next thing, he ought to be talking about the Arya after the direct perception, being like the magician. Let's see if it goes that way.

Okay? He doesn't.

[Speaker 2]
Okay? Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
First thing to say about this sentence is look at this little guy up here.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. It not just started a new thing. It started a whole new thing.

They reserved that mark. It's a pungshe, I think. It's a V and a V and a line.

Okay? Pungshe. Maybe someone can find one online.

Just to show everybody. And that's how we type a pungshe. Because we ran out of symbols on the keyboard.

But it means major, major change in subject. Okay? Major, major change in subject.

They only put them when there's a major, major change in subject. Okay? All right.

It should be P-U-N-G-S-H-A-D. Something like that. I mean, it would be S-P-U-N-G-S-H-A-D.

S-H-A-D. Okay. Anyway.

Gaccha de goppe.

[Speaker 2]
Denying the gaccha.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Denying the thing which we deny.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Good. Yeah.

We're going to have different proofs. Logical proofs. Rikspa.

Right? For denying the existence of the gaccha. The second husband in the kitchen.

Or the pen which is coming from its own side. We're going to use different kinds of proofs. I'm going to give you the one here called, say, Chitudel.

Extremely famous. Extremely famous. Okay?

One of the most popular reasons. Proofs of emptiness. One of the most popular proofs of emptiness.

Misspelled by everybody. Mispronounced by everybody. Okay?

And you should understand. Okay? And this should be on your quiz.

And it should be drilled into your consciousness. That's it. Yeah.

Show it to everybody. That's that little mark. Okay?

When you see that, it means new, new subject. Completely new subject. Okay?

It could be. I don't know. It could be.

Say, Chitudel. It's short for, Chitang Tumadang Trelwa. Say, Chitang Tumadang Trelwa.

Short form, Chitudel. Chitudel. Chitadumadang Trelwa.

Chitang Tumadang Trelwa. Okay. Chit means, dang means, tuma means, many.

Trel. Yeah, devoid of. You can translate tel as devoid of, okay?

So, what's the onomatopoeia that tel comes from? Yeah, the sound of ripping paper. So tel comes from that sound.

Onomatopoeia in English means what? It sounds like the thing that it is. Buzzing of a bee.

The word buzz sounds like what it is. You see what I mean? And tel sounds like separating paper into two pieces.

It comes from an old verb called tel. And it became tel. Now, Sugeng, what's ndel?

Yeah, ndel. What's that ndel? Connected.

[Speaker 2]
Connected, okay?

[Speaker 1]
And what's tel? Unconnected, okay? Do you love prenasals or not?

You see what I mean? If you never learn about prenasals, you will pronounce them the same, and they mean connected, and they mean disconnected. Okay?

This is a nasty one. This is a nasty one. So you've got to say, not in English, you have to say tel, tel, okay?

If you say it in English, ndel, connected. If you say a low-tone sound, tel, it means disconnected, okay? And here, disconnected from?

Yeah, being one of many. Meaning, yesterday we had the concept of mungel in his text.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, contradictory, or...

[Speaker 1]
No, but they were saying it about mungel and mumme. They were saying about mungel and mumme. They're completely opposite, and they encompass all things.

Good. They are comprehensive and opposite. They cover all things.

Blue and not blue. That covers everything in the world. And they're contradictory.

No one thing can be both. But blue and yellow are also mutually contradictory. No one thing can be completely blue and completely yellow, right?

But they don't cover all the colors in the world. You see what I mean? But this one does, okay?

Look, if something exists, either it's one or many. And the many is kind of that... more like those irritating combinations of things that logicians keep pulling out.

Let's take fish and bank. You know, it's not an animal because it's bank. It's got bank in it, you see.

It's an irritating example. It's kaboom. Kaboom.

Yeah, a pillar and a... and a... vase, yeah, okay?

Alright, there's things that you can say about the pair that aren't true of either one. Okay, got it? So, if a thing exists in the universe, if the second husband in the kitchen exists, he has to be either one or more than one.

Okay? So the many in Chiturdao might be better translated as more than one. Because it kind of gives you more the feeling of...

covers everything in the universe. Okay?

[Speaker 2]
But the trouble is it doesn't include zero.

[Speaker 1]
But Dhooma doesn't cover zero.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
No, if it's zero it doesn't exist, you see. In this language. In this language, okay?

Got it? So you have to prove that things are either one or many. If something is neither one thing, nor more than one thing, it cannot exist.

Okay? That's all. Second husband in the kitchen, if he's not one husband, nor more than one husband, he cannot exist.

And it's similar to Nick's famous irritating kitchen. Okay? Ultimately speaking, let's take...

What was the I? Okay. Alright.

So it's going to be tempting to add, ultimately speaking, to... Let's say you're talking about one husband, okay? And you're trying to prove that it's Chiturdao.

It's going to be tempting to say, he's not ultimately one. No, many is not a question. Okay?

That's already disqualified. He's one husband. Like you make it very obvious, he's one husband.

So, you know, okay, you don't have to add ultimately to the many, because he could never be many. But one husband cannot be more than one. Okay, you go over there and debate that.

But... No, where was I? But you...

It's tempting to want to add the ultimately to the one. He is one, but he's not ultimately one. It's tempting.

You want to. It's a... It's a...

It's a svatantrika urge. Let's call it that. Okay?

Adding ultimately to the one, or to the I, in Bhagavad Gita, because proof, is a svatantrika urge that we all have. Now, let's see if they're going to do it here or not. Some authors do, and some authors don't.

Okay? All right. Okay, here we go.

So, I'm going to discuss this... kṣepa means kṣepa. Okay, it's just another...

It's like a future tense of kṣepa. Yeah, I'm going to explain this logic that we use, called neither one nor many. Neither one nor many.

And first, I'm going to... Now, somebody translate this for... 20 bucks.

Because I got 20 bucks this morning from Mexico. Takapa and Sundrupa. My money is safe.

[Speaker 2]
Setting forth reasons and explaining... Proofs that they are...

[Speaker 1]
Okay, it took too long. I can see it's getting close. Yeah, first I'm going to give you...

This takapa doesn't mean the reason. It means the syllogism. Okay?

So, unfortunately, in Tibetan logic, the word for the reason, and the word for the whole proof, is the same. Hetu. In Sanskrit, okay?

And that's unfortunate. So takapa here doesn't... It doesn't mean I'm just going to give you the reason.

It means I'm going to teach you the whole syllogism. Take blabla. It's blabla, because blabla, and a classic example would be blabla.

Four parts of a classic syllogism, okay? So, this person is going to give the... It's really the jorwa.

He should have said jorwa. Which means, more clearly, syllogism, because it never means just the reason. But ta can mean just the reason.

Okay? And then... Come on, Sildrupa.

Tim had it before.

[Speaker 2]
Man, you guys are lame.

[Speaker 1]
Tim had it the other day. No. That's better.

Yeah, mention three parts. That's the first time we did it. No, but it's implied.

Tsu sum drupa. Yeah, I will prove that the three relationships hold. One is three.

I'll give you the first one. One is three. Then?

[Speaker 2]
If three, then two. And thirdly?

[Speaker 1]
If not two, not three. Is there any case where if the second holds, the third doesn't hold?

[Speaker 2]
Not ever. But I get people emailing me all the time, trying to tell me they have blue.

[Speaker 1]
No, it's impossible. I know. Okay.

But it's just a... It's a re-confirmation.

[Speaker 2]
Double check?

[Speaker 1]
Double check, yeah. Okay. Alright, I'm not giving you my money, because I can't read your mind.

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Not really.

[Speaker 1]
He's kidding. We needed you for something, and you were gone. You're the only one who knew the answer.

Well, I'm sorry. Please start again, and break gita, please. Yeah.

Yeah. He's gone that way a little bit. Okay, here's the first one, which is what?

[Speaker 2]
Tak... Gupa.

[Speaker 1]
Tak... Gupa. I'm going to give you the syllogism.

Normally you see it in the past tense. Tak... Gupa.

B-K-O-D. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Consider a sprout.

[Speaker 2]
It doesn't truly exist.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it's not real. Okay? It doesn't really exist.

I like to use really for demba. You could say truly, but... but real is going to hit the pizza guy more strong.

This pizza is not real.

[Speaker 2]
What? Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
No, because... when you select a translation word, you have to make sure there's not another word for that word. There's a different word for ultimately.

In Tibetan, there's a different word. Okay? So you can't...

So to select the proper word when you're translating, you have to know all the other possible words, which is why you can't translate. Okay? All right.

Demba medte. It's not real because... It is neither...

a self-existent one, nor is it... I'm sorry. It is neither a real one, nor is it a real morning one.

Okay?

[Speaker 2]
It cannot be proven to be?

[Speaker 1]
No, it is not. It's just past tense. Yeah.

It's like kyurpa. And then there's the senshi. What's it called?

Tempe yangda. Tempe yangda. Then there's the...

Tempe. The example which embodies both. Perna.

Sumyen. Reflection in a mirror.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Nick's face in a mirror. Okay? Nick's face in a mirror.

By the way, there's another separate word that you should know for the face in the mirror, which is called sheshin. Sheshin.

[Speaker 2]
Sheshin.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, the real face of Nick. Nick's real face is called sheshin. And it's B-Y-A-S, I think.

Then shinrei can mean face, you see? So sheshin means the image being reflected in the mirror. And then the sumyen is the reflection of the image in the mirror.

Got it? Image reflected in the mirror. And the reflection of the image in the mirror.

Okay? So don't forget we're talking about... We're talking about the ontological status.

Okay? Really. Of the reflection in the mirror.

You know, is it real? Is it a real person? Then they talk about babies, small babies.

They see the reflection in the mirror and they try to talk to it or wave to it. You know, they don't even understand that the sumyen is not real yet. It's not a real person.

They think it's a real person. They think the mirror is like a window and there's a person on the other side. Okay?

So sumyen is a classic example for something which is unreal but might be mistaken for real if you're like a baby. Right? Because baby is a word for...

a non-arya. A non-arya. Okay, good?

Okay, good.

[Speaker 2]
So would you say it's like the reflection of physical form?

[Speaker 1]
No, that's not suk. Sumyen is one single idiom which means a reflection.

[Speaker 2]
So it's like a reflection.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, the suk is not treated separately. Do we have any time?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I hope so. Seven minutes?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, we have seven minutes.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
You know, classically, a lama who's teaching this subject would ask the students to go through the parts of the syllogism and confirm that they know them. Okay? So the nyuku is the...

[Speaker 2]
Sprout? Subject?

[Speaker 1]
Chöchen. Chöchen. Okay, the subject under consideration.

By the way, I mean... Chöchen is an abbreviation of...

[Speaker 2]
Oh, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Drupje Chöchen.

[Speaker 2]
The thing being proven? No, the thing...

[Speaker 1]
The thing which possesses...

[Speaker 2]
The second thing in the proof.

[Speaker 1]
Oh. Okay? It means the basis of the quality.

[Speaker 2]
The thing which has...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah, the thing which has a quality. Chö means a quality here.

And chen means... It's like very similar to the word for...

[Speaker 2]
Drupje chen.

[Speaker 1]
Yul chen.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, yul chen. It's the thing that has...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, the Tibetan word for subject.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
It has the object. So people try to prove to a Buddhist that there could be... that dualism means there's no objects or no subjects.

It's like, you can't even say it in Buddhist language. You know? Because the word for subject is the thing that has the object.

Okay? Okay, it's funny. When people start telling me non-dualism, try to go beyond seer and the seen, and I'm like, yeah, okay.

De shin and de shan. Even in Sanskrit, you can't say it. It's impossible to say.

And people, blah, blah, blah. I'm like, blah, blah, blah. Okay.

Yul chen chen. What's the second element in the syllogism called? Drupje chen.

Yeah, drupje chen. The quality you're trying to prove about the subject. The quality you're trying to prove about the subject.

Is that accepted by the opponent yet? No. No, that's the reason you're having an argument.

That's the reason you're having an argument. But, by the rules of logic, he should understand the word that you use in the second position. Like, if you're asserting something is an apple, he must understand what an apple is.

You see, you can't say to him, this is a yablika, and he doesn't know Russian. And he's like, you know, and if you present an argument that uses yablika to a person who doesn't know Russian, you're at fault. And your proof is not a proof.

Okay, got it? They must understand the wording. You know, they must know what's, and nyuku here, what?

Sprout. Sprout. And don't forget, we get this, in the first moment.

You mean, they should have said sprout at the first moment. Seed cracks open. Boop, boop, little thing.

You're supposed to feel this thing, you know. Not like a sprout that's been there for two days, or something like that. You're supposed to feel like seed crack open, something's cooked.

And then we say, oh, it doesn't grow. Boop, boop, boop. Okay?

Okay? There's supposed to be this feeling about, the reason they choose nyukus instead of trees, is they want you to feel this first moment thing. Okay?

They could have said tree, right? Okay. Okay.

Dendukidukdendemikidendukidumakarindumadubedchen is the?

[Speaker 2]
Dark.

[Speaker 1]
Dark. Okay, it's the reason. Okay, names of the three relationships.

One is three, is calm.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, it's called the chokchu.

[Speaker 1]
Chokchu. Good, good.

[Speaker 2]
Right there.

[Speaker 1]
Oops. Dang.

[Speaker 2]
Dang chokchu. That's right, that's what it is.

[Speaker 1]
Dang chokchu. If three, two is calm. that Khyapa, and if not two, then not three Jekyap is the second one, if three, two is called Jekyap, and then Dokyap is, if not two, not three and what's the Thunpe?

Yeah, it's like a Senshi, if you reply to me, it's the Senshi when I ask what's the Thunpe, it's a perfect answer, totally perfect, so if a monkey types on the typewriter, no, next answer is perfect, okay, yeah, the perfect answer to give to what's a Thunpe is, oh, it's a Senshi, it's the classical example okay, perfect answer, okay, by the way, why is, what's Thun in Thunpe mean?

[Speaker 2]
Harmonious, no, but what?

[Speaker 1]
It also embodies number two and number three, in harmony, those two elements are in harmony in the Thunpe, okay, the thing you're trying to prove, the quality you're trying to prove, and the quality that the other guy already agrees to, are embodied to harmoniously in the classical example, it's like a reflection in the mirror, okay, why? Oh, because that doesn't exist truly, why? Because it's not exist truly as a single thing, and it doesn't exist truly as a multiple thing, what if two people are looking in the mirror?

Is it Dendukyi Duma, Chik? If two people look in the mirror, is their reflection Dendukyi Chik? No, is it Dendukyi Duma?

Is it Chik? Is it Duma? It's Duma, okay, got it, got it, it could have been, he could have said, take two sprouts, and it would be the same proof, it is neither self-existent one, nor self-existent many, why?

Well, although it's a many, it's not a self-existent many, okay, got it? We cannot say self-existent in this school, I'm just trying to give you some language you know, here we can say really, and you have to have that intonation in your voice, it's a third, in Chinese, third tone, really, got it, third tone in Pinyin, really, really, he's confused, this mark, oh I'm sorry, really, really, now that's a question in English, really, really, I'm talking about the second one, really, I guess there is no, it doesn't quite, one plus two, really, really, really, really, anyway, come on, you're gonna remember everything, okay now, what did I predict might happen? Yeah, I said somebody might feel it's necessary to add to Nagarjuna's words, really, okay, yeah, now if it's Nagarjuna and he has this proof, what's he gonna say?

Take a sprout, it's not real, because it's neither one nor many, he's not gonna say, take a sprout, it's not real, because it's not a real one, and it's not a real two, this guy's almost Baba Viveka-ing us, okay, you like it, but I'm just saying, if I'm Nagarjuna, I'm like, we just went through that, weren't you in class, when we had mixed class, okay, it's kind of, it's an interesting thing to think about, is it really necessary to say, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really. By the way, you guys had a lot of Tschickte Dills in in Umachidden, I mean we covered it exhaustively, I was exhausted I taught it over again five times or something because we We couldn't find time to do it all at once.

[Speaker 2]
And you did it with Devil Angel?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, we did, because he mentioned it. And by the way, Labdön, the preposition, which is a postposition in Tibetan, you know, I went to the store. To, in Tibetan, to has to come after store.

Store to, I went. So in English, when you say I went to the store, to is called a preposition, meaning it's preposition, meaning it comes before the store. In Tibetan, technically, they are postpositions, right?

And they are suffix letter dependent. There are different ways to spell to in Tibetan, like tu, or tu, or la, or ru, su ru ra du na la tu, su ru ra du na la tu, there are seven. There are seven labdöns.

And the one that's required after ji is tu. Cik tu tra, okay? So many, many people have corrected this to cik tu tra.

Yeah, got it? Many people. You can do a, you can do a, you know, you can see how many spelled it.

By the way, you have to do the tu followed by bral. You must. And, you know, probably, let's see what it is, but maybe a quarter of all authors misspell it.

It's amazing. It's kind of amazing. Okay.

Yeah, yeah, they don't get it. They don't get that it's duma. It's not a preposition.

It's not a preposition. But, yeah, you can run a, you can run a frequency on that, and you'll get a decent amount of people misspell it, and it's amazing. That means they didn't understand the name of the proof, which is one of, I guess, it's in the top five most famous proofs of emptiness.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. All right. I think it's about what you would expect for it.