Медитации на пустоту: объяснение шагов к пониманию того, что ничто не является самим собой, занятие 40

[Speaker 1]
Today's lecture is on how to get rid of negative energy in the body and mind, and how to get rid of negative energy in the body and mind.

[Speaker 2]
So, in this lecture, we're going to look at how to get rid of negative energy in the body and mind, and how to get rid of negative energy in the body and mind.

[Speaker 1]
And I'd like to thank her for the idea. Alright, homework time. And she said she would also make a life tool for me.

[Speaker 2]
So, as you recall, we're working on a text called Right on the Path to Freedom by Choney Lama, and it's because he says the most important thing, the essence of the Buddhist path, is to understand and realize emptiness. And so this text is looking at the different ways in which the different philosophical schools understand what, primarily what the Daksha is, what things are empty of. So, we're now in the independent group of the Middle Way School, and we're sort of like maybe halfway through their presentation, and we're looking at a discussion of how it's impossible that things could be partless.

And we've gone on to a new category. What category is it?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, so we do homeworks first. And it's just a public thing, because they are working too hard to do homeworks at night. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Things that do not come about by the coming together of causes and conditions. And what are three examples that remind us?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, that's a very beautiful...

[Speaker 2]
Nangka. Just put it all... Well, I guess nangka could be used in both senses, but...

He just says nangka.

[Speaker 1]
Space? Okay. Second?

[Speaker 2]
Go...

[Speaker 1]
Goten.

[Speaker 2]
Goten. That's right. Tong, tong, tongpa.

I think he says...

[Speaker 1]
He calls it chuni, I think.

[Speaker 2]
Chuni.

[Speaker 1]
Dharmatang.

[Speaker 2]
Dharmatang.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, so it's interesting, because, as I said in the class, very few people can name more than one unchanging thing. He names almost all of them. And then one by one he proves they have parts, which is very unusual, very rare.

So her text is unbelievable. He goes through all the categories of things and proves they have parts, which supports Nagarjuna. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
So to demonstrate that it is impossible for emptiness to not have parts, Chuni Lama says different things have different emptinesses. What was his example? Do you remember?

[Speaker 1]
That was like two whole days ago.

[Speaker 2]
The emptinesses you have understood and the emptinesses you have not understood.

[Speaker 1]
That's so sexy. That's so sexy. He didn't say emptiness of person, emptiness of things.

He said, you want to divide emptinesses? There's the one you understand, and there's the one you don't understand. That was cool.

Yeah. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
How is it that things are like an illusion? Oh, don't need to get me started. Reflection in the mirror?

Is that yours? Yeah. That's my text.

They seem to be one way, and they exist in another way.

[Speaker 1]
Say it louder.

[Speaker 2]
Don't be shy. They seem to be one way, and they exist in another way.

[Speaker 1]
Good. Yeah. That's illusion.

That's a definition of illusion. They exist one way, and they look a different way. What's it called in Tibetan?

What are the two words in Tibetan? Mi-nang. Nang-tsul and?

Mi-nang.

[Speaker 2]
Ne-tsul.

[Speaker 1]
Ne-tsul. Nang-tsul and Ne-tsul. You can say Mi-nang.

That's the same. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
I suppose Mi-tul has no English equivalent. Why would you say that?

[Speaker 1]
You do suppose that. You're right. Not in accordance.

Yeah, but what's it referred to in this context?

[Speaker 2]
Doesn't match.

[Speaker 1]
Good. What doesn't match?

[Speaker 2]
Discrepancy. Oh, the way we see things?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, good, good. There's a discrepancy. I like to call it nowadays the discrepancy.

Oh, this is a hard one. Very hard.

[Speaker 2]
This is worth money.

[Speaker 1]
I mean, you should give them money. Indisputable. Indisputable.

No one could question it. It means no one could question it. It's rare.

What's the word for alcohol which is related to this root? Nyoche.

[Speaker 2]
Nyoche.

[Speaker 1]
Crazy maker. See, that's the same root. The nyo is the same, okay?

The word in scripture for alcohol and drugs is nyoche. Crazy maker. Same root.

[Speaker 2]
This phrase I made up.

[Speaker 1]
By the way, what's the famous debate expression based on nyo?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, debating with a crazy person. You can't debate with a crazy person.

[Speaker 1]
I'll give you the simple one, and I'll give you the elegant one.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
If you're having a debate with somebody, and they keep breaking the rules, you just say, you're nyomba. I can't debate with nyomba. You know, like you literally can't debate with a crazy person, or a drunk person, or forget it, or a person who's very angry.

You know, just say, I'm not going to debate with nyomba. And then you walk off. You walk away.

In the debate ground, you just, nyomba dan tsutsum. You just walk away. It's like one of the ultimate insults, okay?

But if you're going to say it more elegantly, you say, nyon denwa dang tsupa me. You say, nyon denwa dang tsupa me. It is impossible to debate with a person whose senses have gone off.

And it's an elegant way to say, you know, come on, get real, you know. You're not following any of the rules of debate, and it's hopeless to debate with you. And you just walk off.

It's like a, it's like a debate tactic in the debate ground. You say, nyon denwa dang tsupa me. And you just turn around.

And you just walk away, okay? It's like the ultimate insult. Sometimes it's not nyon denwa, you just couldn't figure out what he was saying.

[Speaker 2]
You're the one.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, what the ding was, I don't know. It's just customary. The other option is to just repeat the subject as the reason.

Yeah, something like that. Yeah, you can do that. Okay, go.

[Speaker 2]
Sorry. Okay, so maybe you can tell me, did I construct this properly? gong tong nam ka ma yin, gyun nam ka shen.

[Speaker 1]
That's beautiful. That's beautiful. I'll kiss your feet.

[Speaker 2]
That's beautiful.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, nice. No, it nam ka shen. Very nice.

Very, very nice sentence. It showed originality, it showed correctness, and it's sexy. Name.

What's the point? Explain the point.

[Speaker 2]
About the voidness?

[Speaker 1]
Gong tong and...

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. What's the difference? Gong tong is just a cavity.

It's a void.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, you could...

[Speaker 2]
Nam ka is the lack of obstruction.

[Speaker 1]
Good.

[Speaker 2]
And it's an unchanging...

[Speaker 1]
This cup rests in empty space.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
But never make the mistake of explaining the empty space as the space between the two edges of the cup. That's wrong. But our author did it.

Or he referred to it. Now, whether he really thought that, we don't know. But never explain empty space as the distance between the two counters where you push the refrigerator in.

That's not empty space. Empty space is where the refrigerator is standing. Before you push it in, it's still empty space.

Okay, so never mistake... Don't ever sit and listen to a discussion by someone who's teaching you that empty space means the distance between me and you. That's not empty space.

That's actually a positive thing. For one thing.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you. This is not a dip in the floor. This is what an art teacher did in a school to keep the kids from running in the hall.

[Speaker 1]
She made these tiles of different sizes so that it appeared there was a dip in the floor. Wow. That's cool.

Is there a difference between du-ma-je-ki-nam-ka and du-je-ki-nam-ka? Yeah, I mean, du-je-ki-nam-ka would be the blue sky. It's the first two of the four spaces.

Yeah, color. I mean, could you say that the space between the walls are... You could.

Yeah, you could say that. You could kind of say that. Might just be using the word in a general way.

It could be. I mean, let's give him the benefit of the doubt since he's Choney Lama. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt since he's Choney Lama.

Since he wrote half the books we're translating.

[Speaker 2]
And then also the first example of the three ways in which space is impossible to be part of this was East and West.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's a little different. Yeah, okay. Not bad.

I'm going to review very quickly where we are. Okay, we proved that things cannot... The big proof that we're on is that things are neither one nor many.

If they're not one nor many, they can't exist. So, to prove they're not one, all you have to do is prove they have parts. And we finish that for every possible thing.

Now we have to prove... They're not many. So we reach the not many argument.

Yeah, normally they don't go into it. They just say, look, it can't be many if it's not one. And then they go on.

They don't give you more arguments. But this, he does. He gives you more arguments.

And he says... Oh, sorry. So I'm just repeating where we are.

We've already covered this part. He says here, a sprout cannot be a truly existing many, because it's not a truly existing one. Then he says, and that has to be the case, because if you're many, it's made of ones.

Everything that's many is made of ones, okay? And, che tham je cha che su drub na, if you prove that every single existing entity, including non-changing ones, have parts, okay? Then, you have to say...

Now he's going off on a different subject. Then you have to say, every object in the universe involves parts and...

[Speaker 2]
Holes. Holes.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, parts and holes. So now he's going to go off on parts and holes.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, cha chen is holes?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah, w-h-o-l. The whole cup and the parts of the cup, okay?

Holes and parts. So he's going to go off on a discussion of holes and parts. And what he does, is he discusses it in terms of the discrepancies.

Somebody tell me what that means.

[Speaker 2]
When you look at something, you think it doesn't have parts? You think it's a hole, but in fact it's... You look at one or the other.

You're either looking at the whole thing, or the parts of the thing, and you have... It appears to you as if those are different.

[Speaker 1]
Nice. There seems to be a discrepancy, okay? When you look at Nick, normally, you're either looking at the whole Nick, or you're looking at parts of the Nick together.

And you feel... It feels like it's different things. In the same way that you feel like the pen is coming from the pen.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
No. You think the whole... all of the parts together, and the whole, feel like different things.

Okay, got it? You look at all the parts of a car, and then you look at the car, and it feels like they are different. But they're not.

They are ngo-o-chik. Okay? They are the same thing.

Okay? It's just your mind can't handle it. And that has to do with self-existence.

Okay? You got some kind of self-existence. There's a discrepancy going on.

You cannot... Your mind cannot entertain the whole, while it's entertaining the parts, even if it's all the parts. Okay, got it?

So that's what we're discussing. And it's very subtle.

[Speaker 2]
It's very subtle. And...

[Speaker 1]
It's gonna help you see it. I know, that's why you got to chew on it. The point of doing so many different deep books, is that we want to hit parts that aren't comfortable.

Because then we'll learn something. Or they're crazy. Okay?

Sorry. No, so, the point of having so many books, and the point of struggling through them, is to find parts we don't understand already. Because then we learn something.

Okay? All right, here we go. Who's got the plane?

Dr. Kramer? Yes. He corrects her pronunciation.

[Speaker 2]
She tries to make the one screw up, so I have something to do.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, cima dukde. The latter part of the reason is correct. Okay?

The latter part of the reason was the collection of the parts and the whole appear to the mind as separate. Okay? And then he's gonna prove it.

Okay? Now he says, cima, I'm gonna prove the latter one. Here it is.

bum dzin wang she. Yeah, and this gets into Sugeng's text. That sense powers are defective.

This is not a mental decision. Your equipment is bad. You were born with defective equipment.

You can't see things correctly. Your eyes messed up. Not your mind.

You don't decide parts and wholes. Your eye power, from countless billions of years, is infected to think that the pen is coming from the pen. Even if you didn't think about it, your eye would see it that way.

You see, your eye is defective. Okay? It's very sad to get out of samsara with defective equipment, using defective equipment.

It's almost impossible. Okay? Got it?

We're not talking about the mind. We're talking about the sense powers, the eye, which is physical, which we learned in whose text?

[Speaker 2]
Sugeng.

[Speaker 1]
No, Adam's text. We just went through it. We just went through it, right?

Not all things which have an object are mental. And we had two other examples of things that have an object, but they're not mental. Give me, give me one of the...

[Speaker 2]
Good.

[Speaker 1]
Words have their objects, but they're not mind. And, physical eyeball has its object, but it's not mind. Okay?

Got it? Yeah. Okay, here we go.

So, now we're talking, Bum Tze Wang She. The visual... The visual consciousness, the consciousness based on the power, which is looking at a vase, or a cup.

Okay? Here we go. And he starts listing classical parts of a Bunpa.

Yeah, Chu is the spout. Shab is the little vase. Toa means belly.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
There's a famous Abhidharma author named Toche. He wrote one of the seven books. It's called Mr. Big Belly. Of course, we wouldn't call him that. And then Jimba, the throat or the neck of the vase. Okay?

We call it the neck of the vase. This Chanom, so sore. Yeah, Er.

The Er is important. Daini grammar case. They appear as individual parts.

And Bunpa Daini, yeah, the pot itself, is Chik Tu Ne. Okay? No, Ne as one.

It exists as one. So here's the discrepancy. Nang Tsu and Ne Tsu.

They appear to have parts, but it's actually one thing. Okay? All right?

And that's a discrepancy. Yeah, you could go the other way. I think.

I'm also not familiar with this argument. And it's a little uncomfortable so far. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Okay. Let's go. Yeah, he's just saying, now look at the difference here.

Bum Tzin Wang Shi and Bum Tzin Tokpa. Yeah, the mental consciousness has the same defect. Your mind is as messed up as your eyes.

Okay? So you could look at the vase with your... You could close your eyes and think about the vase, and you'd still make the same mistake.

Okay? You would still make the same mistake. Okay?

Very interesting. De shin du dro is... This applies as well.

This applies in the same way. All this can be applied in the same way to your purely mental consciousness of parts and wholes. Okay?

Here we go. By the way, the problem is that the mind or the eye sense doesn't see that the cha and the cha chen are ngo chik. That to be one is to be the other.

Okay? Now, helpfully, thankfully, he's going to say, by the way, they are one. To be one is to be the other, and he's going to prove it.

Okay? Because what's he talking about, to be one is to... What's it mean ngo chik here?

Ngo chik has many many meanings. Do you mean they're the same thing? Or do you mean they refer to the same thing?

Or you mean to be one is to be the other? You know, what kind of ngo chik are you talking about? Here, he's going to clarify it, which is very helpful.

And that's Choney Lama. And that's why we're focusing on Choney Lama. Okay?

He cares about you. You know? He doesn't use the words without explaining them.

I'm like Gyaltsabje.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, go.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Now, I got to remind you of a convention of relationship. Okay? So you would say that Toyotas, cars, dang dak chik tu drul.

In Tibetan you say, Toyota, car, and one thing connection. Okay? In English you have to rearrange the parts.

Okay? To be a Toyota is to be a car. Okay?

And it's very important in the study of chik tu drul, of chik chedak. Okay? So we're on to the guts of chik chedak, actually, which is very interesting that the dean came here during chik chedak, and they're teaching it downstairs in the next few days.

The parts, to be the parts is to be the whole, in the same way that to be a Toyota is to be a car. But to be more precise here, in the same way that to be made is to be changing. Equal sense.

Yeah, I... Well, I'm going to say it that way. Let's see if it holds.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
No, it's that same formula. A, B, and to be. To be the parts is to be the whole.

You see, ngo or chik can mean a lot of things. But here he nails it down. He says, I'm talking about the one where to be one is to be the other.

Toyota and cars. Okay? Or cars and automobiles.

Yeah, okay? To be an automobile is to be a car. To be a car is to be an automobile.

Which, is this a two-way equivalence? We don't know yet. We don't know yet.

But probably it is. I'm guessing. Okay?

To be the collection of the parts is to be the whole. Okay? In DCI language, what do we have to add?

The last part. What's the last part? The unifier.

The unifier. The one that puts the parts together. And where does that come from?

Your karmic seed. It pops out of your karmic seed. It's the pot on the stove which is coming downstairs very soon.

Okay? All right? And here it comes.

It's beautiful that the upstairs is matching the downstairs. Duh! Okay?

Okay. All right? So, cha she nam, to be the parts, is to be the whole.

I don't want to see what kind of translation. Which would be, give me a bad translation of this phrase. cha she dang, cha she nam.

We should have a bad translation day.

[Speaker 2]
Probably not a good idea. Because the parts, and the whole, they, they are with one self together.

[Speaker 1]
Connection. Yeah, I mean, give me something like that. Okay?

Don't say, to be a Toyota is to be a car. Say, Toyota, this set of Toyotas has a one-on-one dark, uh, Atman connection with the cars. You see, don't say it in normal English.

Okay? Don't pass the waiter test. Okay?

So, this is one of the cases where you have to transform the sentence completely, if you want it to make sense to your readers. And, if you translate it badly, it's a little obstacle in the way of the reader. And if there's three of those obstacles on a page, and if there's six of them in a chapter, they'll put the book down, and it will rest on the shelf, forever, without being opened.

[Speaker 2]
Hypothetically speaking.

[Speaker 1]
Like the books behind your back. I don't think anyone's ever opened them.

[Speaker 2]
It's very Chinese. Okay, okay, okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, well look, these are English. This side is the same problem. Okay.

Alright, good. Okay, got it? Now, now just go ahead and read.

Okay? chá dan chá ché nyi ngo chi gyin de. What's the kind of one...

oneness I'm talking about here, right? What... Okay, which...

what kind of sameness am I talking about here? Oh, it's the one where the chá ché... where the parts are.

To be the parts is to... be the whole. That's the kind I'm talking about, okay?

Uh... And if you want to say it more... straight out, let's use coffee cup.

Go ahead, boom page.

[Speaker 2]
So the... the uh... the neck and the belly and so on of the vase...

[Speaker 1]
This is lip, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, lip.

[Speaker 1]
It's the word for lip. This is called chu. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Is that holding the picture or is it lip?

[Speaker 1]
Say again?

[Speaker 2]
Is that the eye of the picture lip?

[Speaker 1]
It is. Pretty high, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
This is a high-end water picture.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, why water pictures get high language, I don't know.

[Speaker 2]
So the lip and the vase and so on of the... of the vase?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. No. No, that's not how I want you to start the sentence.

To be...

[Speaker 2]
Oh, to be.

[Speaker 1]
Good. Come on, give it to me. To be the...

[Speaker 2]
The lips and... and base... and so on...

of the vase...

[Speaker 1]
is to...

[Speaker 2]
is to be...

[Speaker 1]
the vase. Okay, got it? So transform this construction in Tibetan.

I never want to see anyone do it literally. You know, the parts... the parts and the whole...

and the whole... one connected self-nature... interrelation, you know.

It's... just say it the way it is. To be the parts is to be the whole.

Okay? But... it doesn't look that way to the human mind, because it's infected.

Okay? And that causes us all our problems. Okay.

Okay, go.

[Speaker 2]
Oh. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Not...

Oh, sorry.

[Speaker 1]
This is a beautiful sentence. And you know, you could have a chance to write some poetry here if you do it right. Okay?

Okay. Uh... And I'm going to stop at the new pe, okay?

This pe means, everything that comes before proves what comes after. Okay? Because of that, this.

Okay? So forget the last part. We're going to come to it later.

Let's just get the first part right. de tar she na...

[Speaker 2]
If you see it that way, or...

[Speaker 1]
If you understand that point, what's that point? To be the... parts is to be the whole.

If you get it. Okay? Then...

tar na... As it appears. As it appearing as that.

Yeah. The way it appears, and the fact that it is empty of being that way in reality. Wow.

Difficult sentence here. Okay? I'll say it again.

The way it appears, and the fact that it's not the way it appears, and he uses the word emptiness. Empty by that. You see?

Yeah. Okay, I'll say it again. The fact that the parts and the whole appear to be different, or separate, and the fact that they are empty of that separateness.

Okay? Very difficult sentence. Okay?

If you get that, then you will be able to ascertain. You will finally figure out. You will be able to finally figure out.

The lie. The dzun. The lie.

The lie. He calls it the lie. It's a very beautiful sentence.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Why dzun? They come together. What comes together?

It appears to be one way, and it's empty of being that way. And put those two together, you understand the lie. You got the lie.

The grand lie of the pen. The pen is lying to you all the time. Okay?

Why? It looks as though it's coming from itself, and it's empty of existing that way. If you understand that combination.

then, you figured out the lie. And then, if you figure out the lie, you know the meaning of... illusion.

See, it's so cool. I keep telling you we finally hit maya. And here it is.

And maya ain't no other thing in Buddhism. Forget it. Everything you heard in yoga class was wrong.

Okay? This is the meaning of maya. And this is the word for maya.

Gyuma. The Buddha's mother's name is Gyuma. Okay?

In Tibetan. She's maya. Okay?

Cool? Did you have a question?

[Speaker 2]
Well, I was just wondering about the as well, but it's... you understand illusion.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Okay? If you understand the lie, which is the combination of it appearing the wrong way, and it really being empty of that, those two things together, if you understand the lie, then you also figured out what it means in Buddhism when we say illusion.

The world is an illusion. Okay? Got it?

It's cool. It's very beautiful. Yeah, look.

Wow, heavy. Where is... La Roma...

We've been at this for two years. And we're about to hit the correct version. Now, it might be interesting to try to discuss what's wrong with this.

Or is it wrong? Or is it just something that they say that the Prasangika would also agree with? Right.

We didn't go there yet.

[Speaker 2]
I don't think he goes there. I mean, he drops in Prasangika, but when he does so, he identifies it as such.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I... You know, I was afraid this question would come up. Let's just go on.

Okay. Now he's getting into... You won't understand this sentence unless you have studied Adam's book.

Okay? When we get to Tadrik, the study of syllogisms. Okay?

The parts of syllogisms, the interrelationship between the pieces of a syllogism. What are the four classic parts of a syllogism? Yeah, let's take Nick.

He's handsome. Because he has a nice colored shirt on today, and the tie matches. He, for example, is like Geshe Michael.

Okay? So these are the four classic parts of a Buddhist reason. Number one, what are you talking about?

Nick. What do you want the other person to understand about him? He's handsome.

It's something they didn't understand. Then you give him a reason, because he has the shirt and the matching tie, which I'm sure his wife did. And then number four, you give a parallel example.

He's similar to Geshe Michael, whose wife got him a tie. Okay, all right. Now there's relationships between all these parts.

There's relationships between all these parts. I'll give you a... Okay.

Take the parking lot, the front part near the door. There's no Subaru. What's your car's name?

Subaru? There's no Subaru there. Okay?

Okay? Behind those orange cones today, behind those orange cones today, they blocked the parking lot, because we have to take a photo today. So behind those orange cones today, there's no Subaru.

Why? Because there's no cars there. Okay?

Because there's no cars there. Okay? If there's no cars there, there's no Subaru.

Why? Because cars is kyab je, and Subarus is kyab ja. Set and subset.

Okay? Member of set and set. Okay?

Which is a kind of logic, okay? In the reason's position, if you give the set, then in the thing you're trying to prove, you can put the particular, and you prove it. There's no Subaru there, because...

there's no cars there. Cars is kyab je, bigger set, and Subarus is kyab ja, smaller set. Here.

Kyab je ma mik pay tak means, ma mik pa means, isn't there. mik mey tse wey ten ten ten mey teen, right? Isn't there.

What's that mean? mik mey tse wey. You love people who are not there.

This is Tsongkhapa's achievement. They are not... You realize they are empty, and you love them.

Okay? So it's called ma mik. So this is a special kind of logic.

This is a category of logic that you're gonna learn in a hundred years when we get to it. Where, because the set's not present, the particular's not present. Okay?

Ah, now. He says, you want an example? It's chik tu de.

It's the syllogism we've been studying for the whole week. Which is what? Give me the syllogism.

[Speaker 2]
Let's take... What thing did he take?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, okay. Take a water pitcher. It doesn't exist really, because it's neither real one or real two.

[Speaker 2]
Right? Am I right?

[Speaker 1]
Then Baba Viveka's right. Chik tu. I had...

I said really three times. We spent... We spent a year in his stupid...

I mean his brilliant text, explaining why you don't have to say really. And I just said really, and nobody caught it. Well, it seemed okay since we're studying Svatantrika.

Yeah, yeah. Oh! Okay.

We're in Baba Viveka's school. He got me. He got me.

He got me bad. I'm wounded. Okay, anyway, got it?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Why is it a khyab je mamipa? Why is it a car and Subaru argument? The...

The being one or the being the other. We don't know it. That's true.

We can't even decide if it's a two-way relationship. Yeah, right now we're talking about being a two-way relationship, so we don't... No.

No, being self-existent one and being... or being self-existent many covers being self-existent.

[Speaker 2]
You see?

[Speaker 1]
If this ain't there, this cannot be there. The pitcher, the coffee cup cannot be self-existent without being either... Unless ones and things and many are self-existent.

Okay, got it? So it's a khyab je mamipetak. Mamipetak means in the last...

in the last slot, slot number three, you use a negative. There's no cars. There's no cars.

Here, here, there's no one, and there's no many. Okay, got it? So mamipetaks are several...

several variations, but they always end with there's no... Okay? Or it's not.

Okay, mayingak or megak.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, okay?

[Speaker 1]
So, so far the sentence says, what kind of classical syllogism reason are we using when we say things are neither one nor many? We're using khyab je mamipetak. The general set is not present.

Therefore, a particular instance of it is not present. Okay? That's the kind of reasoning we're using in this section.

La.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, but...

[Speaker 1]
Go ahead. khyab je dang tendrel kyi tang nyi ni But these arguments where you use either it has parts, or it's dependent origination. If you use that in the third slot as your reason, because it has parts, or because it's dependent origination, it's no longer a mamipetak.

First of all, you didn't use a negative in the first slot. Okay? Tak nyi.

They are gyalda mikpetak, separate category of syllogism. Gyalda mikpa means... there's no green drink in my jar, because there's coffee there.

[Speaker 2]
They are incompatible.

[Speaker 1]
It's called an incompatible... presence of an incompatible syllogism. Gyalda mikpa means present.

Gyalda means one of a pair, of a contradiction.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, so it's a positive reason. You say something is there. Yeah.

But if it's there, the other cannot be there. What's the name of the other one, if something is there, and the other one has to be there? The set section.

[Speaker 2]
Gyalda, or is it... We had two problems.

[Speaker 1]
I don't remember.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, something is there.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, got it? So there's two ways you can prove emptiness. Okay?

You could say something's not there, and you're proving something about a smaller set, or a member of the set. Okay? And you can say because it's not a self-existent coffee cup, because it's neither one self-existent coffee cup, nor more than one self-existent coffee cup.

Being one self-existent coffee cup, or more than one self-existent coffee cup, is a bigger set than this coffee cup being self-existent. Okay?

[Speaker 2]
So the larger set...

[Speaker 1]
If there's no one thing there, or many things there, which are self-existent, there can't be one coffee cup there which is self-existent. Okay? Got it?

But when you use, because it's dependently originating, or because it has parts, it's no longer a negative syllogism. It's a positive syllogism. You're proving the presence of something, which cannot coexist with the other thing.

If this one's present, the other one cannot be here. Okay? Got it?

If Trump is present in the White House, intelligence cannot be there.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
That's a second type. Gyaldan Mikpa. Okay?

The opposite of intelligence is there, so there cannot be intelligence there. Okay? Got it?

Good example? I just invent... I just wrote myself two little examples that I was in the mood to write for myself to remember this.

Take this box. There's no small bananas there, because there's no bananas there. That's Gyaldan Mamikpa.

Sorry. Yeah, that's Kyabje Mamikpa. The general set's not there, so one kind of's not there.

That's... I gave you two examples. Take this box.

It's not unchanging, because it was made in a factory. If it's made in a factory, it cannot... It's gyalwa, contradictory, for it to be unchanging.

Gyaldan Mikpa. Yeah. Mikpa means made in a factory.

It's a positive quality. That quality is present. We say Gyaldan Mikpa.

The opposite is present. Okay? Idiocy.

In the Oval Office. Therefore, intelligence cannot be there. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

What do you call the type of one... You know, he's a dog, because he's a sheep dog. Kyabje?

No. You could say Kyabje, because Kyabje can also apply to equals. But it's not a Kyabje Mamikpa.

It's a Kyabje Mikpa?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, something like that.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, you could... Ah, that's a... That's a Gyaldan Mikpa, I think.

[Speaker 2]
Gyaldan Mikpa. Gyaldan.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
As opposed to Gyalmda. Where you see the relationship? As opposed to Gyalmda.

Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Different members of a necessary relationship are present. Yeah, something like that. Okay.

Okay. There's many, many kinds of syllogisms. We will get to him...

I think there's 16 of these variations. Okay? And they're useful to know.

Okay? What gun are you going to pull out to prove emptiness? Which category of reason are you allowed to use to prove emptiness?

Here's two. And it's very cool. Okay?

All right. Cool.

[Speaker 2]
We can make a list of each of the types of proofs in proof for emptiness.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Okay, here we go.

[Speaker 2]
Ranggyupe. Khamdir.

[Speaker 1]
Khamdir. Remember that...

[Speaker 2]
All right. Khamdir. Yantendrel.

Taktam. Dorje. Sikme.

[Speaker 1]
Sek. Sek. Sek.

Dorje.

[Speaker 2]
Ten. Sikso. Yukhyang.

Mangyu. Dokpe. Te.

Khyepar. Dorje. Sik.

Tengyurwe. Khyapsu. Rinche.

Par. Gyurro.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, good. I'm just going to translate it quickly, because we're out of time. Ranggyupe khamdir.

Here in the discussion of the lower middle way school. Here in the discussion of the lower middle way school. This Tendrel Kitak, where you say something is empty because it is dependently originating.

Okay. Or Dorje Sekma. Very famous.

The sliver of diamond. Okay. Sek frequency to Sik frequency is about one to fifty thousand.

So the typist corrected it unknowingly. Okay. It's not Sik, which is a real word, like Chenrezig, Guanyin.

And Sek means a sliver of diamond. Okay. Very famous logic to prove emptiness.

And whoever named it, had probably seen emptiness.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Ah. We'll have to look in the Tengyur. Okay.

He said, look, I could give you those here. You know. Look, we're discussing lower middle way.

I could give you more reasons. But, mang tu tok. I'm afraid.

Tok. Tok means to have a superstition. I'm afraid this book would get too long to translate in 2019.

Okay. Mang tu tok ne. Because I'm concerned about the book getting too long.

I... I'm just going to present... Ah.

Or the difference between these emptiness proofs, in a brief way, when we get to the higher middle way section. I'll give you a taste of these when we get to the higher middle way section. But it's too much to explain it here, in the lower middle way.

Because this section has gone on quite a way, quite a while. You know. He spent a lot of time.

He went to the magician. And then he went through all those reasons. And you know, he said, look, it's getting too long.

It's going to get longer than the correct one. So, let's just... I'll give you a little bit of it when we get there.

Okay. Dad has promised us some candy. Okay.

Right? I don't know what Igor used to bribe his kids to come here, but it's like that. Okay.

Okay. Here we go. Stop here.

I don't know. What? 21, 19.

Okay.