Медитации на пустоту: объяснение шагов к пониманию того, что ничто не является самим собой, занятие 45

[Speaker 2]
And so we're starting off and we're saying, okay, once we understand that we establish things simply through mental images, what's the risk, according to this school, of further analysis? It's not effective in helping you practice? Not helping you get upset?

Kind of. Oops, I should let other people try. It's a rabbit hole.

Right, it's a useless rabbit hole, that's for sure. We spend all of our time in analysis and not doing the things we should do and avoiding doing those things that we should not do. And Chini Lama says, you know, deceptive reality works just fine.

You know, we don't have to get into the fine details, just do, just act with wisdom. So what's the other kind of risk relative to understanding mental images? And this is closer to what we were just talking about.

So it's not enough to just know how to talk about how things are a mental image. We have to elicit total understanding from the depths of our hearts in relation to our own mind stream. And then we understand.

Otherwise we're merely parenting words. So now we're preparing ourselves to dive into proofs for the lack of self-nature in the consequence branch. And Chini Lama presents two divisions of self that we must learn to distinguish.

You guys remember this? The self we deny and the conventional self. That's one distinction.

What's the second one? It has to do something with flinke. Oh, the inborn tendency to hold to the self and the learned tendency to hold to the self.

Both have to do with flinke. To think about self and grasping. To think, the inborn tendency to think, me.

And the inborn tendency to hold to an I. So there's some distinction there. And hopefully we'll get some clarity about exactly what that distinction is.

Okay, on to the sexy Tibet words. I suppose there is no English equivalent to kun sok cha che mi nu ma.

[Speaker 1]
There's not.

[Speaker 2]
I don't know.

[Speaker 1]
You do?

[Speaker 2]
Why would you think that? We're a translator.

[Speaker 1]
I do.

[Speaker 2]
Deceptive something. Deceptive something, okay. Very good.

Deceptive and unerring. And unerring, good. And what's the legal part?

[Speaker 1]
The object, which is? Or someone that does?

[Speaker 2]
Unerringly sees something. Unerringly? No.

Can a deceptive sense be expressed perfectly? Alcohol, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Cool. Who brought this bad stuff? They're actually amazing.

[Speaker 2]
What are they? They're from Austrian Airlines. They're chocolate.

They're not that good. It's going to make my skin look stupid in an hour.

[Speaker 1]
Yes.

[Speaker 2]
They're not the same. Like chocolate drink. That one's got no sugar.

Does anyone recall what ta da means? Ta da.

[Speaker 1]
Ta doom. Ta doom. Yeah.

I'm sorry. Sorry.

[Speaker 2]
Don't look at that. Don't look at that. And yet.

And yet. And yet. And yet.

[Speaker 1]
What was the context?

[Speaker 2]
We were talking about how, at the beginning, you said the risk is don't spend a lot of detail. Just be happy with the understanding that it's from mental images. And yet, you have to apply it to your own mind.

[Speaker 1]
Actually, it's different. So ta doom means but if you continue. If you keep on.

It means if you keep on digging, you won't reach anything.

[Speaker 2]
I think it was comparing those two different things. The risk is one way and the other way.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. What it means is if you keep on. So ta doom means keep on.

If you keep on digging, you'll get in trouble. You won't find anything. Be satisfied that it's a creation of.

Don't go into the parts. Don't examine the parts.

[Speaker 2]
It's in the next stanza, what we're talking about. You have to look at your own mind stream.

[Speaker 1]
Be satisfied with a construct. And don't go deeper into the construct of the parts because you'll lose the thing. That's what he said, I think.

That's ta doom. Ta doom means if you keep digging. If you don't let it go, ta doom.

It means if still. If you still keep digging. It's an idiom.

[Speaker 2]
And I don't know if you can see that, but it's not Samoan.

[Speaker 1]
Not completely. Yeah, nice. Yeah, good.

I saw it.

[Speaker 2]
Uh-oh. You completely missed it. Can I just show it's gratitude for your format because people in the back can actually see it.

Oh, cool. Good. Thanks for the facts.

Yeah, the facts. It wasn't so bad.

[Speaker 1]
All right, I'm trying to. I think we're here. Am I right?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Oh, sorry. Sorry.

[Speaker 1]
We were going to discuss how the self has no, the person has no self nature. And we were going to use two classic proofs. One is called neither one nor more than one.

And one is called the seven-part proof. And inside the neither one nor many proof, we were going to examine four parts of the proof. One is what we deny, gaccha.

One is khyabpa, which means, look, if it exists, it has to be one or more than one. Then we're going to show that it can't be a self-existent singular. And then we're going to show that it can't be a self-existent plural.

And we finished the gaccha description. And we finished the necessity of something. If it exists, it must be one or more than one.

And now we're moving on to why it cannot be a self-existent one. Okay, here we go. Yeah, now, we would have preferred if it was like one apple or more than one apple.

But he's getting into one in the sense of, if it's A, then it's B. If it's a Chevrolet, it's a car. And I've never seen the one and many proof described this way.

So it's a little complicated. He made it more complicated. So he's not talking about one apple or more than one apple.

He's talking about one Chevrolet, one with car, or a Chevrolet separate from car, in which there's two things. You see what I mean? So, I don't know where he's going, but I've never seen it presented this way.

[Speaker 2]
I don't know. Because of his school, there's so much...

[Speaker 1]
It could... I mean, let's flow with it. But I'm just saying he's making it harder for us.

So, rikpe noppa bap means logical problems ensue. Okay? Bap here means fall, right?

But it means we incur logical problems if the self is one with the heaps, you see, literally. But don't forget that when we get into this territory of dang chik, this dang chik, I prefer that you say... Yeah, to be one is to be the others.

So this is a case where, in my opinion, to translate it correctly, you have to add a lot of words. To be the self is to be the heaps. To be Michael is to be Michael's body and mind.

That's one choice. And that, for him, is one, in the argument that things must be one or many. But that's a completely different kind of one than anything we've seen before.

Normally, they will say, if something exists from its own side without... If the husband in the kitchen, who's not my fault, exists, he must be one husband or two. Okay?

That's the logic. He must be one husband or more than one husband. So first you go to the one and you say, he's not one husband who exists from his own side.

Then obviously he cannot be two, because if you don't have one, you can't have two. And that's the usual argument. But this person, this Choney Lama, is saying, logical problems ensue.

But we get logical problems falling down like rain. If Michael... If to be Michael...

That's how we have to say it. If to be Michael is to be his body and mind. Yeah, dark.

Yeah, dark. So there should have been a dark up here somewhere. Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, it's a good question, yeah. So Michael is not such that to be Michael is to be Michael's body and mind. And there's an extreme in his text, okay?

The Hindus, and Christian really, in some sense, the idea of a soul, that there's a separate Michael. And this is the one your mom told you when I was young. My mom said, Mom, what if I die, what happens to me?

She says, well, your body dies, your mind dies, but your soul goes on. So that would be independent of body and mind. That would be one which is, to be that Michael is not to be your body and mind.

You see what I mean? So that's kind of a real extreme one where Michael's floating around separate from Michael's body. If Michael's body and mind die, then Michael still has some existence and still moving around and like that.

So that's one very extreme. And we had it in 20 schools of your discussion, and they were the eternalists, right? And so that's kind of what we're talking about here, okay?

Is to be Michael, to be Michael's body and mind. Is there a Michael that's left over if you kill the body and mind? Okay.

That's the next one, yeah. This one is not, okay. Okay, number four.

Yeah. He said either separate or not such that to be one is, not such that to be one is not to be the other. He used two different meanings of pade.

He said dham. Dham means or. So I'm talking separate or such that to be one is not to be the other.

Okay. He has two meanings of separate. He says you can take separate to be separate entities, or you can take separate as to be essentially separate, meaning to be one is not to be the other.

And they're different. And that's why we're struggling with the translation, and that's why I never want to see separate essence or separate entity or something like that. It's not what it means.

To be a Chevrolet is to be a car, but to be a Chevrolet is not to be a kind of horse or something like that. You see what I mean? Those are pade.

Okay, cool. By the way, I mean the idea of a soul does exist in Buddhism. Your mind is endless.

No beginning, no end. Cannot be destroyed. Will never be destroyed.

Your identity continues. And that's the one that goes to heaven or doesn't go to heaven. So there is what you would think of as a soul, but it's just identified as your mind stream, which cannot be destroyed.

And you are eternal. And in time, that eternal self will go to a paradise. Okay, here we go.

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Yeah, good.

[Speaker 1]
So we have cast it physically on the page. We cast it in debate format. And I'd like you guys to do that with your texts.

Okay? And sometimes it's unofficial. He just wants it to sound like a debate book, like Sugeng's text.

The whole gosh darn thing is a debate text, and Adam's also. But this is a pretty classic proof. What's confusing to me, and maybe it's going to be clarified, is he starts out saying, there's two ways you can take the chöchen.

Yeah, the subject of the debate. Okay, there's two ways you can take the subject of the debate. His first chöchen is nga.

I don't know what his second chöchen is. Well, it's the same. So I don't know his point.

This is where you just keep going and hope it's clarified. Okay. Exactly.

Hope the students get distracted. Okay. So literally, the first sentence here says, you can take the subject of the debate in two different ways.

How or what, I don't know. Here's the first. Nga chöchen.

Yeah, like take Michael, or take Nick, or take Utpala. Okay. Take me.

Nga chöchen. Ranggipumba teng gyur rang shig gi ma duk te.

[Speaker 2]
As he is not established as resting upon his heels?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I would say something like, I'm tempted to use in, you know. Michael does not exist, self, through any nature of his own, in his body and mind. Okay.

Literally, the Tibetan says, on top of. But I'd say something like, you cannot find a Michael that exists in his body and mind, by nature. By nature.

Meaning, not coming from your seats. Okay, you cannot find. You can say that.

That's okay. But, you know, make it simple. Strive for simplicity.

Okay. If you translate this literally, you're going to lose everybody. You know, does not exist through its nature, on top of the heaps of the stuff.

You're going to make it Dharma gibberish. Let's look at the next sentence, and it's going to clarify that question. Okay, here we go.

Why is the Michael not in the body and mind? By nature. Okay, automatically.

Okay, because, because, go ahead.

[Speaker 2]
It's established.

[Speaker 1]
By the way, don't, for dupe, you can just say, is. You see, past tense. Okay, he does not exist, either, kang duang, either, as cik.

[Speaker 2]
One or separate from. One or separate from.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, from what?

[Speaker 2]
Cik, from his body and mind.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, his body and mind. Okay. Like, if you want to make it accessible to a foreigner, here's a place where you can play with body and mind.

If it's not essential that there's five heaps, which is not, which is already, I like to think of a reader reading your text as an Olympic runner running, what do you call, hurdle? Jumping over hurdles. And every time you can just knock one down, you make their life easier.

If there's too many hurdles in one sentence, you will lose the reader. They will stop reading the book. So the goal is to knock down those hurdles, you know.

So I would say, I'm just talking about pumbo, right? Like, maybe, just to remove that hurdle, because not many of your readers are going to have the right idea when you say five heaps. Because five heaps means your body and mind.

So maybe you want to just say body and mind. And then you'll get in trouble with the Tibetan scholars who say, it says pumbo. And you'll say, yeah, but my audience is not, didn't grow up with pumbo.

They grew up with body and mind. And it's exactly the same thing. You could put on, but then that's another obstacle.

You see, you want to spare people, you want to remove obstacles to the free access to the meaning. That's translation. Yeah, maybe the first time, the first time, yeah, I would say that.

The first time you replace heaps with body and mind. Now there's texts like Stanley where it's important that there's five. It's important that you don't say body and mind.

So I leave it up to you guys. But what I'm trying to impress on you is, as a translator, try to remove obstacles to your reader. Because if there's too many, they'll put the book down.

And they won't put it down because they're angry. They'll put it down because you fatigued them. And they just can't, you know, Netflix is a lot easier than philosophy.

So you're going to lose them. If you have too many foreign words, too many weird ideas, try to streamline your text without corrupting the meaning. Anyway, so, Michael doesn't exist in his body and mind either as the same thing or as a separate thing.

Something like that. Okay. And that's ciktutra.

That's neither one nor many. So many here means as a different thing. He wants it to go that way.

He wants it to go that way. Okay? All right.

Perna?

[Speaker 2]
Yes? It's like a reflection.

[Speaker 1]
A reflection in a mirror. Now, when you get to these reflection in a mirror metaphors, you've got to know the difference between reflection and the image standing in front of the mirror. What's the word for image standing in front of the mirror?

I mean, I don't remember. I'm hoping you remember. Sukhnyan is the reflection.

And what's the thing in front of the mirror? I don't remember. It has a specific word.

There's a specific word. Okay, let's skip it for now, because I can't remember either. But be careful that you got the right one.

Okay, be careful that you got the right one. One is false, one is real. Chetan, you're right.

How did you find that? You're so smart. Say Chetan.

That's the real person standing in front of the mirror. That exists. And then the reflection in the mirror of the person's face is fake.

It's an illusion. And a baby, you hold a baby up to a mirror. You got to experiment, okay?

You got all these chances to use this baby for something useful. Stick him in front of the mirror and see if they try to touch themselves. Someone's moving and they try to touch the other baby and they don't realize it's themselves.

So then that's the real meaning of Sukhnyan. It's an illusion. Only a baby falls for it.

Adults are like, oh, that's... Okay. So reflection always means illusion.

And you got to make sure you don't have Chetan. Because that's real. That's the face in front of the mirror.

That's the one you're shaving. If you're a guy. All right.

Then somebody says, Makhya. Okay, by the way, this is the typical... This is a real classic proof.

There's a Chetan. There's a Drupche Chetan. The quality you're trying to prove about the subject.

The subject is me. We're trying to prove that it doesn't exist in my body and mind by nature, okay? So that's the quality we're trying to prove about.

Then we have the Tak. Which is the reason? Oh, because it doesn't exist in the body and mind as the body and mind, nor separate from the body and mind.

Okay, one or many. Okay. And then we have the Thunpeyam Tak.

Yeah, the classical... Literally, it's Thun. There's another Thun.

It means it combines two qualities harmoniously. The one you're trying to prove and the one you stated in your reason.

[Speaker 2]
Thunpeyam Tak?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it's called Thunpeyam Tak. What's the classical one for Drupche Chetan? Oh?

Drupche Chetan, mi-ta-te, che-pe-che, pen-la. Oh? Sound.

Like a water pitcher, okay? Take sound. It's changing.

Drupche Chetan, mi-ta-te, che-pe-che, because it's made. It's like water pitcher, okay? And why water pitcher?

It was sitting there on the table when they were teaching in an ancient Indian room. So, okay. It's not that they...

Kailash, right? Kailasha, water vase. Kailasha?

Kailasha. Pen-la-bum-pa-shin. Shindu.

Yeah, okay? So this is a beautiful, classic, four-part Buddhist syllogism, okay? Sometimes they leave out the fourth one.

I just wanted to point out they had all four, okay? So here we go. So khyab means, if I number these one, two, three, four, the parts of a syllogism, what does ma-khyab mean?

[Speaker 2]
Ma-khyab means three doesn't prove two.

[Speaker 1]
Right, just because three doesn't prove two. Somebody says, just because Michael is not in his body and mind, either as it or as something separate, doesn't prove he's not in his body and mind. Okay, he says ma-khyab.

Yeah. Just because you're three doesn't mean you're two. Okay, he says.

The other guy says. And we say, khyab! Yeah.

Every time three is true, every time Michael doesn't exist in his body and mind either as the body and mind or as something separate from the body and mind, he's not in his body and mind. Khyab. It's always the case, okay?

Which is kind of the khyab we were talking about in the first place. If Michael's in his body and mind, he either has to be the same as the body and mind, or he has to be separate from the body and mind, one or many. Okay, yeah, got it?

Here we go. Khyab te.

[Speaker 2]
Rang shin gi.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, stretch this out for me.

[Speaker 2]
Rang shin gi.

[Speaker 1]
Excuse me, let me interrupt you for one second because Chun Tzung will be happy with me, which is one of my goals in life. Okay. Okay, she's way back there.

Okay. Rang shin gi.

[Speaker 2]
Rang shin gi drub na.

[Speaker 1]
This is a beautiful ... I mean, this nails it down. If you understand it, it really nails it down.

Okay. Khyab te. If three, must be two.

If Michael is not either the same as his body and mind or separate from his body and mind, then he's not related to his body and mind self-existently. By nature. And here we have the by nature.

Rang shin gi drub na. If something existed by nature, what's it mean in the kitchen? Yeah, if the husband could be yelling at you and you never yelled at someone else.

That's called a husband who exists by nature. And it's impossible. That's a self-existent husband.

By his very nature, he's yelling at you and you did not yell at your kids in the past. Or your boss. Or your mom.

So if something existed by its own nature, the husband in the kitchen, then he would have to either be one husband who exists by his own nature, or he'd have to be two separate husbands who exist by their own nature. Got it? That's logical.

Why? Because if something exists, it's either got to be one or more than one. What's more than one?

A pair of shoes. Okay? Alright?

Or a bunch of bananas. Okay? So if something exists, it's got to be singular or it's got to be not more than single.

Okay? Well, why? And here's a very deep sentence.

This one is crucial. Things got to be one or more than one because one and many are munga. And be careful.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
They're a comprehensive mutual inclusion. Meaning there's nothing that exists outside of those two. So big, big, big, big contradiction means changing and unchanging.

And there's nothing else in the universe. You see what I mean? Physical or not physical.

So here you kind of got to add a word in English. A comprehensive direct contradiction. Meaning it covers everything.

You see what I mean? Because there are direct contradictions which don't cover everything. Okay.

Physical and mental. They're contradictions but they don't cover everything. Yeah, good luck.

Up to you. But I'm just saying don't translate this as direct contradiction. It's not enough.

Physical and mental are direct contradictions but they don't cover all existing things. One or more than one they're contradictory and they include everything. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I would say a comprehensive direct contradiction. You make up a word. I like it.

God bless you. They are contradictory in a way which covers all things or something like that. But you got to say something like that or this argument doesn't make sense.

Okay. And I've been struggling with that. Sometimes I forgot to add comprehensive and then I went back over the manuscripts later and I was like, wait, this doesn't make sense.

Okay, here we go. Go ahead.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, cool. We've identified the parts of a classical syllogism and you have to be familiar with that if you're going to swim through Buddhist scriptures. You've got to know logic.

You've got to know syllogisms. Here's the subject under consideration, Chöchen. Here's the quality we're trying to prove about it which the other guy doesn't acknowledge yet.

He hasn't recognized it yet. Here's the quality that the guy agrees it has and he hasn't recognized yet the khyapa which means if it has that quality, it must have the quality we say it has. But there's another relationship here which is between one and three.

Okay. Yeah. Which supposedly the opponent has already always accepted.

Okay. Let's take the Japanese restaurant. We should eat there tonight because you like Japanese food.

That assumes your wife agrees that she's always liked Japanese food. Yeah. Yeah, well, basically that the restaurant has Japanese food.

So one must be three. One must be three. That's called Chöchen.

Chöchen. In fact, the opening line of Pramana Bhārataka is Chöchen Deche Kyabari. Very famous.

Difficult. Super difficult. Yeah, might as well.

What the hell. Before you pass from this world, you might as well translate the worst thing. Okay.

I'm up for it, okay. I'm just saying. It'd be a nice tribute to Geshe Yeshe Wangchuk.

Anyway. Chöchen Drupalani. So we're going to prove that one is three.

Chöchen. Which means the relationship between the subject and the quality which the opponent already agrees applies to the subject. Which is the third statement of the four.

What's the fourth statement of the four? Yeah, the example. The example.

Yeah, he's saying I'm going to prove the relationship between one and three which is one of the tsultrim, right? Definition of a good reason. I'm going to prove it in two different parts.

Here's the Dambo and here's the Nipah down here. He wants the two-step confirmation of the first of the three relationships which is called chok chö. What are the three relationships?

Chok chö, je khyab, do khyab. All syllogisms must have three relationships hold. One is three.

If three, then two. If not two, then not three. Okay.

Is there any possible case where if three, two, but not two, not three? This is the Ukrainian theory. We're still confirming it.

Those Ukrainians. After 2,000 years, the Ukrainians redesigned Buddhist logic. Okay.

Two parts to prove that one is three. Here's the first. Go ahead.

Nga Chi Chen.

[Speaker 2]
Consider me. It isn't one. It isn't as one.

[Speaker 1]
To be it. To be me is not to be by nature my body and mind. To be me is not to automatically be my body and mind.

So, by the way, the two halves of the Chok Chö, one, we're going to prove it's not one. Second, we're going to prove it's not many. These are the two one plus threes.

First, we show how it's not the same as my body and mind. Michael is not the same as my body and mind. And then we're going to prove that Michael is not separate from my body and mind.

Yeah. So here we go. Take me.

Take Michael. He does not automatically apply to his body and mind because de dang charmay kyi chik tu ma du pay che. Now, your text, I've taught your text many, many times since we went through it.

Your text, when it got into parts, partless atoms, it was really treating why things can't be one. And I've used it countless times since then because your text had the most elegant survey of all the possible ones in the universe. Physical, mental, neither physical nor mental, permanent and unchanging, emptiness, space.

He covered all of them. Time, he showed why they had parts, why they had to have parts, and why space has to have parts, why time has to have parts, why emptiness has to have parts. I've used it countless times since we went through it.

So this comes back to that. He's calling back to that. Charmay kyi chik.

It is not a one with no parts. It is not a one with no parts. Now he's kind of sliding back into one and not one with.

Okay? He's kind of greasy. He keeps sliding.

Nice to have you guys here. Please come back. Yeah, he's not one and the same as his body and mind by nature because he's not one with body and mind in a way where they don't have parts.

He slid from one to the other. That's kind of what he's saying. If it has parts, if they have parts, it can't be the body and mind.

If Michael has parts, he can't be the body and mind. Yeah, I mean he's sliding back and forth.

[Speaker 2]
Which one?

[Speaker 1]
We said Michael's to be Michael is not to be his body and mind naturally by nature. And then he threw in because he has parts. Okay?

He's not he's not one and the same because he's not one. And that's a big jump. That's a big jump.

Michael is not the same as his body and mind because Michael has parts. Now you got to cook that. Is it true?

I don't know. But that's what he said. Charmé Kichik.

He's not a partless one. Okay, Madrup. He doesn't exist as a partless one.

Then we say, Dharmadrup, I disagree that Michael doesn't exist as a partless one. He says. The other guy says.

And then we say, Dental. No, he doesn't exist as a partless one because he's Chaché. He has parts.

He has parts. Say again?

[Speaker 2]
He doesn't exist as a partless because he has parts.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, he doesn't exist as a partless singularity because he has parts. But that's not the big jump. That last jump was the big one.

If he doesn't exist as a partless singularity, he can't be one and the same with his body and mind. That's a stretch.

[Speaker 2]
If you can place it there, are the parts that are enough neither the body, neither the mind?

[Speaker 1]
I don't know. I don't know if he's going there. You guys have to sit with this one.

I don't think we're going to resolve it. Chok Chok Drupalanyiki. Let's prove one is three.

And we're going to do that in two parts. We're going to prove that Michael isn't. To be Michael is not to be his body and mind.

And then we're going to prove that to be Michael is not to not be his body and mind. But he doesn't say dang chik here. He says chik du ma drup.

No, here he says de dang chik. You see? De dang chik.

Yeah, yeah. That's okay.

[Speaker 2]
But naturally. Yeah, but it's not naturally a thing which is one.

[Speaker 1]
That's what he just said. But the jump between what comes before the te and what comes after the te is uncomfortable. To be Michael is not to be his body and mind because Michael has parts.

Yeah, and a thing which has parts can't be established as being one thing. Right? De dang chik.

Yeah, but that's not what the chik meant in that. The chik meant same as. It didn't mean singular.

He's jumping between the two meanings of chik. Oh, okay. Where's the appointment?

So, ngachi chen is spoken by us. Okay? We're trying to prove one is three.

The first half of one is three. So ngachi chen is me talking. And then I'm telling to the other guy, Hey, look, Michael doesn't exist in his body and mind self-existently.

And then, understood between te and between te and de dang, he said chik che. Why do you say that? Why do you say that to be Michael is not to be Michael's body and mind automatically?

Why do you say that? So, in between te and de, he said chik che, which we always reply to with ba-ba-ba-ba-chir. He says chik che.

Why so? And we say, ka-so. Chik che.

So, we say de dang chan me kyi chik tu ma druby che. Michael does not exist as something which is his body and mind in a partless way.

[Speaker 2]
I don't think you have this problem. Chik is one.

[Speaker 1]
Then you've got to say this thing which I hate saying, saying Michael is one with his body and mind.

[Speaker 2]
One thing, which is.

[Speaker 1]
Is a single thing, which is. I mean, we're doing chik tu druby, aren't we? That's not the point of chik here.

It's dang chik. It's dang chik. It's an idiom which means to be him is to be his body and mind.

He didn't say chik. He said dang chik. Anyway, druby pa thao.

Then, after chir, yeah. He says dang ma drub. I disagree that if Michael is partless, that if Michael's not a partless thing, he can't be one with his body and mind.

And then, cha ching yin pi chir. And then the guy says chik chir. And then we say de thao because he has parts.

Michael does have parts. Now, the tricky part. Parts.

Is thak ngar shing drub po. This thak, the last thak, because there's many thaks here, right? Every time there's a chir, there's a thak.

But the last thak was Michael has parts. And the guy says again, dang ma drub. And we say, come on, thak ngar shing drub po.

But, no, before. It could be back 50 pages ago. We don't know.

We don't know. I believe it's back when we were discussing parts. Yeah, way back.

Come on. We already talked about that. That's true too.

But I can't think of any place else we covered it, ngar, before. I can't think of any place else we covered it. You know.

It's possible. Maybe you can find a more recent one. But this ngar is kind of greasy.

You know. Previously, we have covered that. Okay, let's.

We got time to do the second one? Oh, cool. Okay.

Second part of proving the chok chok, which is one equals three. Okay. First we proved that it's not singular.

And now we have to prove that it's not separate, meaning many. Okay, here we go. Now he doesn't repeat the chok chok.

He just says that same chok chok. But what is the chok chok? Yeah, me.

Here it is, here. Ngar chok chok. Okay.

Let's take that same me. Michael. Neither is Michael such that to be Michael is to be separate from his body and mind, which is many.

Okay. Got it? He's flipping between many and separate.

To be Michael is not to be separate automatically. Okay, we need that adverb from his body and mind. From his body and mind.

Because he's not an automatic one. So how can he be automatic many, meaning automatic separate? If Michael's not an automatic one, how can you have him plural?

How can he be separate from something else? You can't say the table is separate from the computer if the table doesn't exist. Well, everybody's got Dharma indigestion.

I'm sorry, what? What's that? Oh, that's just a second.

Yeah, that's just a second. This one here? Back here?

Let's take Michael. He doesn't exist automatically in any relationship to his parts, to his body and mind. Because he is neither one and the same as the parts, neither is he separate from the parts.

Okay. Why? Because he's like a reflection in a mirror.

Okay. Yeah, sorry. Tough, huh?

Tough. The toughness comes from, and you're going to get used to it, if you struggle with it. He skipped, he jumped from the normal one and many, which is like one Michael or more than one Michael, to, is Michael one with his body and mind, or is he separate from his body and mind, in which case there's many.

Okay. Yeah. Yeah.

As being separate. Oh, no, that's not duma. No, that's tad de du kama madrup.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Careful there. Sorry.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, okay. Yeah, be careful there. Just because Michael isn't a self-existent same as his body and mind doesn't prove that he's not, doesn't prove that he's not separate from his body and mind.

And we say, it does, because the only way you can get to many's is to pile up cheeks once, okay? If Michael's not a single self-existent thing, then Michael can't be separate from another thing, because that would be more than one self-existent thing.

[Speaker 2]
He's referring to the section where we divided up everything as absolutely everything having parts, and that would kind of work here, because it would still refer to everything being touching.

[Speaker 1]
You could say that, yeah. And now, but it's not a static having parts. It's a theoretical being not part of, which means two things.

So he's jumped from a static parts and wholes to over time, or in a relationship. He's saying, I'm separate from you, which means we're plural. He made that leap.

Khyapa Yoddey, the only way, and this is classic Chittadel, the only way you get to many's, and this is Duma, is by Sakpa piling up cheeks, okay? Where did we have Sakpa in the DCI course yesterday? Yeah, Sakchan, collecting good karma before you meditate.

So, Duma, cheeks, Sakpa, Laten, and Jog. Good. You must establish many's by relying on piling up ones's.

Okay, alright. Now, he had one part of his one to three relationship. Then he had a second part of his one to three relationship.

So don't confuse the Shenyong with the second part. He's going off on a separate subject. Okay, don't confuse it as part of his argument of why one is three.

He still might be proving one is three, but he wants it treated as a separate subject. So here's another syllogism. Please read.

Shenyong. I like your ki. Nice.

All your readings are getting good. We'll have to start another language or something. Okay, moreover, Ngochi Chen.

Yeah, or Michael, or whatever. To consider utpala. She does not...

Her relationship to her body and mind is not that they are separate. To be her is not to be her body and mind. Okay?

Her relationship to her body and mind... Yeah, and you must say it automatically. Because is it her relationship to be such that to be her is not to be her body and mind, or not?

If you are utpala, are you utpala's body and mind or not? Yeah, I would say yes. Anyway, she's not such that to be her is not to be her body and mind.

Why? Because she's not something which is jel me dun shen to her body and mind. Say jel me...

dun shen. It's an idiom. Jel me dun shen.

You got to read it together fast. Jel me dun shen.

[Speaker 2]
Which means totally separate and unrelated.

[Speaker 1]
Totally separate and unrelated. Like Trump is jel me dun shen from intelligence. Something like that.

So jel me dun shen means totally separate thing, unconnected. Rimrock and New York or something. Jel me dun shen.

So jel me part means no connection. Dun shen means totally separate things. And it's an idiom.

Jel me dun shen. Look, it's just totally different thing. But it's not the case.

It's not the case that to be utpala is to be... It's not the case that to be utpala is not to be utpala's body and mind. Because it's not the case that utpala is jel me dun shen from her body and mind.

It's not the case that she's a totally separate thing unrelated to her body and mind. Therefore, it's not the case that she's not related to her body and mind. Okay?

We got two nut knots. Yeah. And automatically it's going to be important in about two minutes.

Wah wah. Really? By the way, what comes up next We will stop here because it's too long.

But we're going to hit on the Rangchinki. Rangchinki. Now he's going to go for the automatically.

What do you mean self-existently? What do you mean automatically? Why do you keep adding the adverb automatically in this discussion?

And we're going to hit on it. We're going to explain it. Okay?

Is to be utpala to be her body and mind automatically? Is to be utpala not to be her body and mind automatically. He keeps throwing in automatically.

So, actually it automatically kills both choices. Without my seeds. Yeah.

We're saying Rangchinki by nature. Naturally. Naturally.

Okay. Rangchinki. Okay.

Stop here. What's the date today? 8th?

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
It's cool.