Медитации на пустоту: объяснение шагов к пониманию того, что ничто не является самим собой, занятие 39

[Speaker 1]
So, in this lecture, I'm going to talk about how to get rid of the negative energy that comes from negative energy. So, John and Connie are going to write a life tool, as if they were writing a DCI level, from this class, and they're going to, you know, we call it diamond mining. They're going to dig through what goes down in this class.

They're going to take notes, and then when they hear something that might be usable by a business person, or by a person in their personal life, they're going to make a life tool out of it. Xiaoping, what are the three things we want to see in the life tool?

[Speaker 2]
Catchy name.

[Speaker 1]
Catchy name. Those go together as one.

[Speaker 2]
And they're relevant to the audience.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and authentic. It should be the real poop.

[Speaker 2]
If I wanted to be sneaky, I'd be ready quick and take something from her homework, because she already picked something she thought, she picked three things she thought was important.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, now, can you summarize your text in general, like an elevator summary of your text in general, and secondly, tell us where we are now.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, so this is a text written by Thulhu Lama, as you know, who was an esteemed faculty member of a monastery in Tibet. And so this is a graduate-level course on what he thinks is the most important thing about Buddhism, the very essence of it, which is to understand emptiness perfectly. So what he's doing in this text is going through the various schools of Buddhist philosophy with regard to the aspects of emptiness, like what is the dak cha, for example.

And so where we are right now is we've gone up to the independent group of the Middle Way School. And you missed, unfortunately, the discussion of the magician, you know, and the ointment in the eye and all that. And now, though, we're on to a syllogism of emptiness, and it's chit-to-go, which is one-on-many.

And we have gone through... we just finished gross physical matter. So you might guess what is the next little bit?

[Speaker 1]
We're on the one part of not one or many. We're on the one. And to defeat the idea that something could be a self-existent one, what's the only thing you have to do?

Show that it has parts. So we're going through all the possible boxes in the jewelry box, and in exactly the same order as BCI 7, and we're finding that each thing in the boxes has parts, which is enough to prove it's not a self-existent one. And here's your homework.

[Speaker 2]
So what is the basic...

[Speaker 1]
Oh, every translator gives homework from their previous class, and then people answer it spontaneously and correctly.

[Speaker 2]
Which you should be able to do given what is just...

[Speaker 1]
Without bribes of money.

[Speaker 2]
What is the basic logic that Chuny Lamrim uses to disprove the notion of a partless particle? Showing it has parts. If there's another particle on one side, and there's a particle on the other side, and they're not touching each other...

[Speaker 1]
Wait, wait, wait, slow down. Slow down for the audience here.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, the central particle.

[Speaker 1]
Start with the central particle.

[Speaker 2]
If there's a central particle, and there are six particles surrounding it...

[Speaker 1]
Why six?

[Speaker 2]
Because the four directions plus up and down...

[Speaker 1]
So if it's a clump of stuff, there must be at least six particles together. Well, I think the way... If it has width and height and...

The way he was saying it was that they'd have to be touching each... If they were touching the central particle, they'd probably be touching each other. Like this.

Like this. Yeah, yeah. Okay, like this.

Okay, here's the central particle. If molecules are made of atoms, they must be like this, and one on top and one below, okay? So this one must be touching these guys.

And? And those guys would be touching each other if they don't have any parts. If they're not made of...

If the central particle, for example, doesn't have a left side and a right side, then the two that are on the left side and the right side would be touching each other. Yeah, this one would be touching this one. And since they're not touching each other, and since there is more physical space, there must be sides to the central particle.

If there's such a thing as an atom, which means atom, indivisible, cannot be split further, then the left side should touch the right side. This one should touch this one, because it wouldn't have any width. But then what's the problem with that?

Widthless particles, if you...

[Speaker 2]
Put a thousand together and they wouldn't clump.

[Speaker 1]
They wouldn't clump. You wouldn't have length or width. You couldn't...

A molecule would be the same size as the atom. If you put six atoms together, they'd still, yeah, be the size of the first atom. Okay.

Yeah. By the way, when I say 75 books, I mean that we can locate, translated by Xuanzang. There may have been more.

I don't know. There's a reference to 900, but I can't find them.

[Speaker 2]
So, Chirin Lama quotes from this book as, you know, the scriptural authority for the syllogism he just gave us. So, what text does he use, and who is its author?

[Speaker 1]
Nisha Vyasanga?

[Speaker 2]
Question.

[Speaker 1]
The 20 verses by Vyasanga. Which is one of the most important Mind-Only sources.

[Speaker 2]
We learned that. We did learn that.

[Speaker 1]
It came in her book. It was quoted in her book. Do you remember what the quotation was?

[Speaker 2]
You can either have, you know, atoms that don't have parts, or you can have stuff.

[Speaker 1]
It's like, he's like, which way you want. Okay, go ahead.

[Speaker 2]
What is the interesting way that Chirin Lama presents the parts of a person? Sitting, standing, walking, walking on a plane, flying, no, no, no, passing, going, coming, sitting and standing, that would be the time-related one, sitting and standing.

[Speaker 1]
Upper part of the body, lower part of the body. So, he discusses the parts of the person over time, according to their activity, where are they standing, where are they sitting. But they also have parts statically.

They have hands, legs, you see. So, they are part, they are part, things with parts. People are things with parts.

He's going through all the boxes and showing each one has parts. Which box was the person?

[Speaker 2]
Which one? Physical?

[Speaker 1]
Demanduchi, I guess. Oh, right. Between physical and mental.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
So, even those things have parts.

[Speaker 2]
I suppose kosa has no meaning. Kosa? Position in space.

[Speaker 1]
What's the second meaning of it? What's the second typical meaning? Yeah, a position in a business or in a government.

But, in philosophy it means the space occupied by the atom, or by the part. Empty space. That place has a name in Tibetan.

We don't have a name in English. The place where the computer is occupying is called kosa.

[Speaker 2]
Is it used in the fourth basis meditation, or is it not that? Say again?

[Speaker 1]
It would apply to the third one. It would not apply to the absence of the meg, of the gaksha. No, they wouldn't use that.

[Speaker 2]
Correct position?

[Speaker 1]
Nice. Correct position on a philosophical position.

[Speaker 2]
It's not necessarily correct. Yeah, tepa. Well, you said it was tepa, that's all.

[Speaker 1]
It just means correct. That means my argument's correct because your argument is correct, right?

[Speaker 2]
Good.

[Speaker 1]
Meaning upper part of body It's going to come in Allison's text next class. There's a vow against nuns sleeping in the same bed if their meh is touching. So, it comes.

The same word is important in the next class. Who is that? Manly Hall.

[Speaker 2]
I have no idea.

[Speaker 1]
He wrote what?

[Speaker 2]
No, not Monty Hall. Monty Hall. Manly Hall.

[Speaker 1]
Would you like a... This is a super cool guruji.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you for your attention. You guys can share this.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, I got the plane.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you. Okay, here we go. Okay, so, having covered the parts of changing things, we're now on to the parts of unchanging things, which is kind of very a relief that an author would go so systematically.

You know, here's the parts of physical things, here's the parts of things which are changing, but neither physical nor mental, here's the parts of mental things, now here's the parts of unchanging things. And he gives us three options, which is itself cool, because most people can't name more than one unchanging thing, because there are not many of them. They are esoteric, okay?

First is, space has parts. Second, yeah, the truth or the reality of the end, the permanent end of certain undesirable qualities, which is pretty much the definition of gogten, okay? We call it the truth of, but it doesn't mean truth of, it means the fact of.

The fact of getting rid of your negativities, is apparently a...

[Speaker 2]
dumache. Unchanging.

[Speaker 1]
Unchanging. Hopefully, because if it could change, you could go back to your old self.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Understand? So gogten means it's finished forever. Okay?

So forever finishes don't change, hopefully, because if they changed, your anger would come back, your desire would come back, okay, like that, okay? And then chunyi. Yeah, dharmata.

Dharmata. Say dharmata. Yeah, which means emptiness, okay?

So, three unchanging things have parts. A, it's cool that he named them. B, it's cool that he proves how each one, by itself, has parts.

And that's really sexy.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
I'm sorry? Very similar. Very similar.

Noun, noun, noun, nominizers, nominalizers, noun makers. Like NESS and TION in English. Okay?

And they probably come from those. Okay, here we go. Dabo dertao.

Okay, so now we're talking about the parts of space. Empty space has parts.

[Speaker 2]
From...

[Speaker 1]
Oh, it's impossible that it doesn't have parts. Okay, that's the point. Good.

So, please read.

[Speaker 2]
...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it gives three different ways in which empty space has parts, which is really nice. I don't think I've ever seen such a methodical presentation. And that's why I was so irritated when you guys couldn't come to the first class, because you missed something amazing.

So you should try to get back to that class. Okay? I was really upset, as Nick knows.

As upset as I ever get. Don't...

[Speaker 2]
We're getting there.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, we're getting there. Okay. So, what is tokche?

Constructability? Yeah, it means, you know, a thing that's material. Okay?

This is tok. Who's a famous tokme? Yeah, Asanga's name means, cannot be...

His wisdom cannot be blocked. He's like, boom. I call it hot knife through butter.

His name, Asanga, means hot knife through butter. Okay? So anyway, tokche is the opposite.

Tokche means, you know, knockable thing. Okay? Yeah.

Concrete is not a bad translation. And then he nails it down by saying sukrakpa. Yeah, a gross physical thing.

We're not talking subtle things. We're talking big objects, like cups and tables. Okay?

Rakpa dam. Then there's... There's the space that this tokche rakpa, sukrakpa, is occupying, right?

So in a way, that space has a connection to this thing occupying it. You see what I mean? That's all.

So therefore, we can say space has parts, because the space over here, which is connected to JB's laptop, is not the same as the space over here, which is connected to the watermelon jar. So in a way, those two locations of space are defined by the object occupying them.

[Speaker 2]
That's all. Are those parts of what? Greater space?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, of greater empty space.

[Speaker 2]
Like the room?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah. So you can say the empty space that relates to the watermelon jar, and you can say the empty space that relates to JB's laptop. And therefore, you are defining empty space as having parts.

That's the first sense of three senses in which empty space can have parts. Okay? And that's cool.

I like that. Okay? Here's the second one.

This is easy. This is the one that Pabongka uses in the Three Principle Path Commentary. Yeah.

You can divide it, ye-wa, into east and west. And therefore, shakpa established that it has parts. Okay?

There's the empty space to the west, and the empty space to the east. Inside are words left ear, and inside are words right ear.

[Speaker 2]
Empty space.

[Speaker 1]
Just kidding. Okay? So that one's easy.

Here's the one I don't like. He talks about the kong tong. And it's interesting, the Chinese is similar, right?

Kong. So, kong means the inner space of a vessel. So this is the kong of the jar.

And oftentimes, your abdomen is called kong. The, you know, the inner, the distance between the two ribs. Or the difference distance.

Yeah, cavity. It means cavity. Yeah.

And then kong tong means empty cavity. And, and that's the illegal empty space, meaning the distance between John's computer and my computer. Okay?

This, defining this as empty space is a mistake. It's not correct. Okay?

It's almost a positive thing. I mean, it corresponds to a place in the same way that an empty jar's place corresponds to a space, but it's the positive thing. You see?

It's the, it's the distance. Distance is not empty space.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
The distance between the edge of this computer and the edge of this computer is not empty space. It's, it's the distance. It's a positive thing.

And, and I object strenuously to calling it empty space. Okay? Yeah.

What? What?

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Not really. I just created it. A new kind of space came into existence.

All right.

[Speaker 2]
That's true.

[Speaker 1]
No, because that was the one that related to my previous computer. Okay, anyway. I, I don't like it, but, you know, maybe you can have a footnote or something.

But I, I really feel uncomfortable with it. I, I, I don't like to see Choney Lama using it. I mean, by the way, the Kongtong takes its own space, and that's an empty space.

But that's a different thing. Okay? Anyway, he wants to say the Eastern coffee cups, Kongtong, and the Western coffee cups, Kongtong, define different parts of empty space.

Yeah, it's the same as the first one, but, but he's implying that these are empty space, and they're not. Okay? I object to that.

Okay? He, he's flirting too close to a very famous wrong idea of empty space. I don't think he should have mentioned it.

He's going to confuse us through it. I think so. They're going to go around saying Kongtongs are namkara.

And they're not. Okay? They have namkaras.

That's another thing. Okay, here we go. Now, we finished with empty space, we still have to go to cessations, and we still have to go to emptiness.

So we finished the parts of empty space. One of them is the familiar one to us from Pabongka Rinpoche's old, you know, why does space have parts? And now we're going to go to the parts of cessations.

Meaning, the permanent ending of undesirable qualities. Okay? You can define it that way.

And it's called the truth, but it doesn't mean that. It just means the fact of, the real thing. Okay, here we go.

Please, go ahead.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
It's important to fill in the day for your reader. Okay? It refers to chame.

Okay? Chame nisi. Yeah, it's...

He just says, that's impossible. But, that's not very helpful. He should have said, not having parts is not possible.

So I just filled it in for you. You know? So, it's impossible that the occurrence of the ending of an undesirable quality in a person could not have parts.

Because, there's different undesirable qualities. Anger, jealousy, desire. And when you get rid of each one, that's a separate thing.

That's a part of the general gogden. Got it? There's the ending of jealousy.

There's the ending of desire. There's the... Okay.

Or, if you want to put it in Abhidharma terms, there's what you eliminate on the path of seeing. There's what you eliminate on the path of habituation. Is there something you eliminate on the path of no more learning?

No. That's just being there.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Is there something you eliminate? Is there a gogden at Jorlam? Yes.

What? Nice.

[Speaker 2]
Nice.

[Speaker 1]
Very good. Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
How would she say if the path of seeing is eliminating something?

[Speaker 1]
I know. I know. I know.

It bothers me too. Write a letter. Okay.

So, so, cessations have their parts also. Okay? Therefore, they are not a self-existent one.

Because it goes back to the original syllogism. And we still got to come to a self-existence. Many is coming later.

We're still on the one. We're covering everything. Yeah, I mean, don't, don't, don't tell the joke the end of the joke yet.

Okay, go. Nice. It's impossible that de.

[Speaker 2]
Good.

[Speaker 1]
It's impossible that emptiness wouldn't have its parts. Okay? Emptiness also has its parts.

So, you will never see such a good, clear explanation. Just take out that kong tong thing, and it's really good. Okay.

de la tong shi. What's tong shi? I should offer money.

That's the other fifty dollars? It's the thing that's empty.

[Speaker 2]
It's the foundation of emptiness. It's the object itself.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
I think that's it.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, twenty-five and twenty-five. Okay, so give him twenty-five, give him twenty-five. Okay?

So, tong shi means, yeah, the thing which has emptiness. Okay, the thing, and that's different, right? So, there's an emptiness of the computer, there's an emptiness of the jar, there's an emptiness of the table, and therefore, emptiness has parts.

What's the technical, the translation? Tong shi. Ah, the thing which is empty.

Yeah, the thing which is empty. Okay. Or you can say, the thing which doesn't have self-existence.

How's that? Okay. Tong shi, che chen means that, it's just saying again, the thing, the particular thing.

This does not mean the first element of a syllogism. Che chen means, che dang den pa, ke che dang den pa, is the meaning of che chen. That thing which has a quality.

So, the word for subject, in Tibetan, is that thing which has a quality. So, che chen. Okay.

Thing-haver. Okay. And then, the che is ke che, the quality, impermanence, redness, hardness.

Okay. Okay, so, here it doesn't refer to the subject of a syllogism. Okay.

It just means the object, which has the quality. ta den kyi yeway.

[Speaker 2]
Separate from the particular...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Separate divisions.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, shakpa means, different emptinesses are established by dividing the different things that have them. Okay. The emptiness of John's computer is over there.

The emptiness of the cup is over here. Okay. So, there are divisions to emptiness.

Yeah, okay, okay. According to the different objects, that's one way to posit shakpa. That's one way to posit different kinds of emptiness, or different parts to emptiness.

And I'll give you another way. There's the emptinesses you have figured out, and there's the emptinesses you haven't figured out. Each individual person.

Kazakh so-so. Okay. So, there's the emptinesses that Stanley understands, and there's the emptinesses he doesn't understand.

And you can divide emptinesses that way. According to each separate individual. Kazakh so-so.

Okay, it's a very cool, very interesting. You know, are there parts to emptiness? Yeah.

What? There's a part I figured out, and there's a part I didn't figure out. Okay, very cute.

[Speaker 2]
Didn't we have a person divided by whether or not they had seen emptiness?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. No, that was his proof of divisions to mind. And he said, kipak, which means what?

Yeah, there's minds in the universe which have seen emptiness, and there's minds in the universe which haven't seen emptiness, and that was his first example of different minds. He didn't say jealousy, anger, you know, he said, look, there's only two kinds of minds in the universe. Those that have seen emptiness and those that haven't.

And for him, that was the most important division of mind. I don't remember.

[Speaker 2]
I'm sure.

[Speaker 1]
In the Diamond Cutter Sutra, it's also emphasized with how much karma can they make by giving, you know, can you make by giving stuff to them, or like that. We had it in the text, in Dr. Wu's text, in the first class today. Okay, anyway, extremely cute.

CA SOGS DANG BYAS PA It has its parts. Whether you're talking about the parts that relate to different objects, or whether you're talking about the parts that I figured out and I didn't figure out, emptiness has its parts.

[Speaker 2]
Or then you can divide it by the emptiness before it was realized, and the emptiness after it was realized.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, you can.

[Speaker 2]
When it changes from being unrealized to being realized.

[Speaker 1]
Doesn't change.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Now we've finished CIG DZAO. Now we're going to do TU DZAO.

[Speaker 2]
TU DZAO.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, we proved that things cannot be a self-existent single thing, because everything in the universe, and I went through all the categories, all the jewelry box, is divisible. It can be divided into parts. Therefore, it's not a self-existent one.

If it were a self-existent one, it could never have parts. Now, let me prove to you that there cannot be a self-existent more than one. And sometimes this, you can call it the one-in-many argument, or you can call it the one-in-more-than-one argument.

Okay? So here's the more-than-one part, and as Utpala pointed out, it's kind of a letdown. It's a letdown.

Letdown means disappointing. It's like, what? You're not going to say anything else?

Okay, here we go.

[Speaker 2]
I don't know.

[Speaker 1]
Please, please read. Yeah, it's the one thing I understood today. You can say that.

Therefore, what I understood has parts.

[Speaker 2]
So, we're on the second part now. It's about...

[Speaker 1]
Two months?

[Speaker 2]
About...

[Speaker 1]
More than a year. Let's take a pen. A sprout?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, let's take a sprout.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Mark? Yeah, forget the R on Dumar.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, okay. Many ways to establish it? There are many ways to establish that they are not many.

[Speaker 1]
To establish that they are not many. It doesn't exist as a self-existent many, and the as is the R.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
It doesn't exist as a self-existent many.

[Speaker 2]
Because it exists as a self-existent one. Because it doesn't exist as a self-existent one.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's all. And it never gets more complicated than that.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
We can't have two mistakes in the room if there's not one mistake in the room. Finished. Okay?

That's all. It's kind of a letdown. Like you're waiting for some long, satisfying argument, and they just say, look, two is made of two ones.

If you don't got a one, you can't have a two. Got it? Okay, let's go on.

Wah-wah.

[Speaker 2]
And he nails it down with, If you want to have many, you got to have work.

[Speaker 1]
You want to go further? Thanks a lot. And then he, we said you can't have a self-existent many if you don't have a self-existent one.

And then he came back with, well, do you have or do you not have a self-existent one? Like he's not done with the one. And then we come back with, come on.

Yeah, in between there, he said, I disagree about why you say there's no self-existent one. And then we say, come on. We just, we just chamekar.

We just chame, we just denied, we just disproved partless things. Come on. Okay, don't take us back there.

What, you can't remember the sentence from last, from, from ten seconds ago? Are you a mixed nut or something? Mixed nuts is the name of this group who can't remember the first class during the second class.

Okay, just kidding. Just kidding.

[Speaker 2]
Mostly. Okay, go. What did I say?

Drupal? Drupal.

[Speaker 1]
It's proven. Drupal. Yeah, yeah, it's not Drupal.

Yeah, yeah. It's a, it's an ambiguity.

[Speaker 2]
It just was a little weird off the tongue.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I felt bad for Tangtang this morning because I told her Bu is the only hard B. And then we got Drupal.

[Speaker 2]
Tangtang, did you hear that? Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, Detachetamje. By the way, their class starts now. They're a little bit off sync with us.

Detachetam, it wasn't my breath or anything. Although that does happen. All, all things in the universe, if you prove, Drupna, that everything in the universe is chachet, has parts, okay?

If you prove that everything in the universe has parts, then you prove that, that each thing in the universe has parts, and there's also a thing which has parts. It's either part, it's part of something else, or it has parts, okay? Okay.

If you prove it with everything in the universe, you prove it with every individual thing, really. That they have parts, and that they are... they are a whole.

Chachet means a whole, you see? Yeah. The part holder.

Part haver. Okay, so you can say parts and wholes. Wholes and parts?

We say that in English? Parts and wholes, yeah. So everything in the universe is a part and a whole, okay?

Cool? Now, this... Now we go into a difficult thing, and I...

you know, I'm a little fuzzy on it. So the whole and the part, ārde ngōmoṭik, is to be all the parts to be the whole.

[Speaker 2]
No. Well, we're in what school?

[Speaker 1]
Lower Middle Way. Right. No.

He's gonna say... Well, I'm just... you know, I'm a little fuzzy on this next sentence, but let's go through it.

Let's go play with it. You ready? Go.

I'm gonna read it, and you tell me the conclusion. So, chādan chacet nyi, the parts and the whole. Okay?

And I take it to be all the parts together. Okay? I don't take it to be a part and the whole.

Although, maybe that's what it is. Let's see. Parts and wholes.

Ngōmoṭik tu ne. In reality, they are ngōmoṭik. This ne means in reality.

Okay? That's the way they is. Okay?

Kyang. But... In the way they appear to the mind, when they appear to the mind, lola nangway se, they appear to be ngōmoṭade.

Okay. They appear to be separate. Okay.

The whole and the parts. And I would say the collection of all the parts appear to be separate things. And I think the point is, when you look at Nik, you can either consider him as the whole Nik, or you can consider him as all his legs, arms, put together.

Okay? And really, that's the same thing. But, you know, when you...

On an experiential level, you're always experiencing Nik as his... You're only focusing on one thing at a time, or you're focusing on the whole thing. Okay?

Lola nangway ne. Nyöngyönmyapa is a beautiful expression. Nyön is related to nyomba, which means cuckoo.

[Speaker 2]
Crazy, isn't it?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Cuckoo, nyomba. You're like, Oh man, he's a cuckoo.

Okay? So it's nyön, is the same. And nyönmyapa means indisputable.

You know? Okay? It's a word that's like totally indisputable.

No one could deny it. Okay? Okay.

So the fact that they appear as separate, even though they are in reality one, is indisputable.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Nyönmyapa.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Therefore, and here's an important part, döntön and dönmyitön, which we had as two divisions of mind. The nangtso and the neytso, minda. What's the one English word we use to describe that?

For fifty dollars.

[Speaker 2]
Discrepancy?

[Speaker 1]
Damn!

[Speaker 2]
Stop it!

[Speaker 1]
It's so expensive. You're just like anybody. Anyway.

Okay, remind me, okay? Can you give him fifty bucks? Later, okay?

Okay, yeah. So neytso, dönmyitön, mindawa. The way it is and the way it looks are different.

That means discrepancy. And that's the definition of deception and maya, and deceptive reality in Buddhism. The way it looks and the way it is are separate.

Okay, got it? It seems that Nick and Nick's parts are separate, but in reality they're not. And that's a discrepancy.

Okay? Cool? You know, we might want to have said the opposite.

I don't know. But anyway, you deal with it. And you deal with whether this is unique to the school, which I'm not touching.

Okay. de nyi nitsuk ngo chik tu ne kyang, nangso ngo thade dun nangway che. de nyi, those two, Nick and Nick's parts, in reality, neytso, they exist as being the same thing, but kyang, the way they appear to us, nangso, is that they appear to be separate.

Nick and the totality of Nick's parts appear to be separate to the mind, but they're not. Okay, in reality they're the same.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
So this does contradict what you like to teach in DCI. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, because I want the final part, which is the seed, which is the unifying luminous image.

[Speaker 2]
Right. And what he's just saying is the same. It's uncomfortable for me that you keep saying the totality or the collection, because you're making it singular, but...

[Speaker 1]
It could have been different. It could have been a single part.

[Speaker 2]
I mean, in the analysis of a chariot, for example, right? I mean, the big, or a car, you know, the Nagarjunan thing is that one of these are singular and one of these are many. The parts are many, and so...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
If you say Nick is his parts, then you're saying there's a bunch of Nicks. Right.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, you could say that. I think he's talking about the human tendency to either focus on a detail of Nick or focus on the whole of Nick. I think it's as simple as that, but...

You know, this is something you can chew on for a while. It's not immediately evident what he's saying. You have to interpret it to fit what he says.

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
It sounds like a syllogism to explain it, doesn't it?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Well, he's going to talk about it more. You go ahead.

He's going to talk about it more. And what's ngor chik mean here? I mean, that's another thing.

[Speaker 2]
Essentially...

[Speaker 1]
Is to be one is to be the other, or is it just that they are the same stuff? We don't know. Dendawa.

[Speaker 2]
Dendawa. Dendawa.

[Speaker 1]
This is a very valuable sentence for, you know, forever. So, that Nick, in this case, duluk means the way it is. It literally means the way it stays.

Duh means to stay. Like, duh sa means your house. Okay.

Duh sa. Duh sa. Duh sa.

So, this is the way in which things stay in a deceptive way. This is what we mean by deceptive. Netsu and nangtsu, mitumba.

The way it is, and the way it looks, are different. That's what we describe as a condition where something is deceptive. And that's what maya, illusion, means in Buddhism.

Okay. Shakpe. And this discrepancy, this deceptiveness, is established, shakpe, according to wangwa, how it appears to the mind.

Not by how it is. You can only talk about deception if you're talking about how something appears to the mind. That's different than the way it really is.

Okay. Now, we are not describing something existing in reality, in truth. Okay.

This is not to exist in truth. Because, if it existed in truth, denpo drub na, then the nangtsu and the netsu should be the same. Okay.

Yeah, they would have to be the same. Okay. Would have to be the same.

Okay. And since they are not the same, matang. What it means to be truly existing, is incomplete here.

The requirements to be truly existing are incomplete, matang. Okay. What's not complete?

There's no match between the way it is and the way it looks. If that's not complete, we can't say it's denpo. It's real.

Okay. Alright. It's incomplete.

The list of things we would require, if it existed truly, is not satisfied. Because the way it appears and the way it is, don't match. Cool?

It's a very interesting description of self-existence.

[Speaker 2]
And he's not saying that's the only requirement.

[Speaker 1]
Say again?

[Speaker 2]
He's not saying that's the only thing that we have.

[Speaker 1]
He didn't say that. Yeah, he implied there's others, because he said matang. The list is incomplete.

What it would take to be self-existent is incomplete. Because the way it looks and the way it is, it don't match. So you're equating to be truly existent, to be self-existent.

I'm just saying, you know, in English, in our group, we use the word self-existent frequently. And if you wanted to describe it to somebody, here's an interesting way to do it. If it were self-existent, the way it appears and the way it is would have to match.

But that requirement is incomplete. Therefore, it's deceptive. Oh.

So is it deceptive? Could be. Yeah.

To an ignorant person. Yeah. Like, what if you see a pot as coming from a seat opening in your mind?

Is that pot self-existent? Like, it's still depending on... Oh, well, it depends if you really think that it's self-existent.

Or if you're just... You're talking about jayapaksema based on a... on a reliable source or something.

Yeah. Yeah, at Chod Chok, I'd say maybe you have it similar. Oh yeah, that's true.

I guess you'd have to say that. If the netso and the nangso... I don't know, but it's still nanging.

Even to an Arya, it's nanging as it's coming from its own side.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Well, he's going to go on. Yeah. He's going to...

I think he's going to answer your question. Alipenga. Go ahead.

By the way, anybody under 60 in the monastery might not know the expression alipenga. It came from Tibet. The old Tibet.

Go ahead.

[Speaker 2]
... It doesn't help us much.

[Speaker 1]
Parts and wholes, those two, okay, don't have... don't match in the way they appear and the way they are. Okay.

Parts and wholes don't match, mitun, in the way they appear, nangso, and the way they are, netso. De. Sunna is an unusual introduction.

Meaning, if I was to give you an example. Okay. It's not a normal construct, but it's okay.

It's understandable. Sunna means, if I was to give you a real case. This sun means case.

If I was to give you a real case. Let's take a water pitcher, right? In reality, netso, it is lower cheek.

It is of the... It consists of... I mean, it's of its parts.

In reality... I mean, you might want to play with the translation of it consists of, but we'll see. Even though, kyang, in reality, it consists of its parts, when it appears to the mind, when the vase appears to the mind, it seems as though the whole and the parts are separate.

Okay. What are we doing? Are we out of time?

That's too bad. Well, it's a long argument. It's going to go on for a while.

Just, just, you know, to skip ahead, detar shen na ni, if you get this point, what I'm trying to say, if you get what I'm trying to say, then appearing in one way, but being simultaneously empty of being that way, okay, is what we mean when we say deceptive. And if you figure that out, you will also figure out the meaning of the word illusion. The meaning of the word illusion.

Or when we say like an illusion, gyu mi shin. If you can figure out what I'm talking about, the discrepancy between the way it looks and the way it is, then you will suddenly understand the Buddhist conception of maya, of illusion, the grand illusion. And that's the only meaning of maya.

Okay. It's not what all the hippies talk about after they smoke some stuff. Okay.

All right? And we're not done with it, and maybe it will cook in your mind until we meet again. Anyway, it's an amazing...

I mean, if someone, as a teacher, in your dharma studio, slash yoga studio, if someone comes up to you and says, it's all an illusion, you can say, just read this page with me. Just come and read this page with me. It's nice to have, you know...

And when it's in a nice book, Sugeng has published it with his own... By the way, we have to talk about financing those samples, which I have to help you with. We're going to talk about it.

I don't expect you to keep making gold diamond things without some help. Samples. So anyway, yeah.

What's cool is when we finish our work, or we're pretty well through and we've published some stuff, you can keep those books in your dharma studio, and somebody says, illusion, and you say, just... you say, oh, let's see, that's volume three, you know, you know... Yeah, and we don't have that now, and that's why we exist.

That's why the mixed notes exist. So, to go from now, when there's no books to show the student, to later, you say, oh, that contradicts volume 63, you know, section 114. You are contradicting the kundra, you know.

You're basically writing the kundra, which is kind of sexy. Okay? Shambhogati, shambhogati.

[Speaker 2]
.