Медитации на пустоту: объяснение шагов к пониманию того, что ничто не является самим собой, занятие 46

[Speaker 2]
Welcome to the crib for the second class of the PhD. Thanks for your interest and patience. So we're in Krishnamoortha, and Jimmy Lama has said that he's going to, although there are many, many different syllabuses that they use, he's going to present two.

And the first one is Thikthika, or One and Many. And there are, he says, four crucial ideas in the One and Many syllogism that we must be sure of. If you could give me two or three answers, first in English, and then Tibetan for each one.

So what first is the word that you might use for be sure of? Be sure of?

[Speaker 1]
Nepal?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. We must ascertain, oh, there's the answer, I didn't do this right.

[Speaker 1]
So the first one is again what we deny. So what's the word for that? Kappa.

[Speaker 2]
And what's the second thing?

[Speaker 1]
Necessity. Right, necessity. There's only two choices.

Sorry, guys.

[Speaker 2]
So professional. Out. Thank you very much.

Kappa means if this, then this?

[Speaker 1]
Pervasive. Pervasive. It's all-inclusive.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, what's the third thing that we must understand? If there is no one, there are two alternatives? No.

Part of that. There's really not one. Oh, yeah.

Got it. All right. I figured out the first one.

Chick? Chick. That's one of the words.

[Speaker 1]
Chick. So shin-me? No, not shin-me?

Really? You-me?

[Speaker 2]
Okay, so now this next one. Free of being truly ones? Right.

Uh-huh. I didn't do that one, but, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
It stands to reason.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, so in the fourth crucial idea that things are not really one, what are the two ways we can take the word having?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, right. Separate in the sense of not being one? Something like that.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, that's a good question.

[Speaker 1]
We're talking about, is Anatole Anatole's body and mind? Is Anatole Anatole's body and mind?

[Speaker 2]
Right?

[Speaker 1]
Separate from his parts? Separate from his...

[Speaker 2]
As separate entities. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay.

[Speaker 2]
And then the second way?

[Speaker 1]
To be one is to be the other. It's to not be the other. Oh, okay.

Because we're talking about having... Okay. Separate.

But there's two means of separate. Like the glasses and the phone are separate, right? But what's the relationship between the phone and the phone's parts?

Is it separate or not? You see, meaning is to be the phone to be its parts. Right?

Or it's to be the parts of the phone to be this phone. Are the parts together the phone?

[Speaker 2]
Which parts would you say that they're unrelated?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, so anyway, that's a debate. What's the punchline in Buddhism? Are the parts of the phone the phone or not?

Not if you don't include your imputation. Yeah, without the karmic seed opening and the unifying picture coming out to put all the parts together, it's not a phone yet. Because otherwise you'd just have pieces of phones laying around.

That's lower or higher? Higher. Yeah, because that means you make the phone the phone.

The phone's not a phone until you make it a phone. And that's why Steve Jobs had to discover the phone. Because all the pieces were already there, right?

Alexander Graham Bell did all of it. Alexander Graham Bell. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
All right, last question.

[Speaker 1]
So, Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche says there are also two ways to take the subject of syllogism. And in this case, our subject is not. And what is the first?

[Speaker 2]
Now, he hasn't said this explicitly, and I'm taking a stab at what this might be, and I'm probably wrong, but I'd love to hear your ideas of what is the way that you're keeping taking la so far in our syllogism.

[Speaker 1]
So he's making a lot of arguments that start with consider I, me. He starts in each case, he says, take me. And she says the me maybe has two different meanings.

What? No, he said you can take it in two ways. Yeah.

And then I think maybe a clue would be in the first class, we talked about how we had to make distinctions between two things.

[Speaker 2]
And one of those things was the la. So I'm thinking maybe it's one of the two ways, but...

[Speaker 1]
It's awful quiet in here. That's the quietest it's been. Good, yeah, dark.

Not in the sense of dark. Atman, yeah. Self, as opposed to I.

[Speaker 2]
As opposed to being apparent, this is a plenty self, you're not pretending to grasp it or not.

[Speaker 1]
Okay.

[Speaker 2]
So use the last vocabulary words.

[Speaker 1]
Wow, that's a good one.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, this was, I'm sorry. Whoa.

[Speaker 1]
I didn't remember it would have been fun. I like the picturing. What's the one on the left called?

Cheshin. What's the one on the right called?

[Speaker 2]
Suknyan.

[Speaker 1]
Suknyan, yeah, Suknyan. Okay, good. Image in front of the mirror and image reflected in the mirror.

The first one exists, the second one doesn't. I mean, in a real sense. There is an unshaped face in front of the mirror.

That exists, but the one in the mirror is not real. All right, here we go. I can take the plane.

Okay, we're back to this second argument. We're going back just to catch what we're arguing about. Please read here.

Cheshin. Let's take the me, okay? I went back two lines from where we stopped, I think, right?

Here's where we stopped, and I'm going back two lines. It is. But so is the other one.

So let's take me. Please read.

[Speaker 2]
No talking in the class.

[Speaker 1]
Say again, I couldn't hear you. Yeah, relative to the body and mind, it is not what? Yeah, it's not separate.

Automatically, okay? Once you join automatically in any Buddhist statement, you can just about throw it out. Meaning, without your seeds.

Without your seeds. From its own side. Classic example in the kitchen.

Yeah, I didn't do anything and he's yelling at me, which in Buddhism doesn't exist. There's no such husband. You always did something.

It's always the wife's fault. Okay. Say again.

Okay. PHUNG PO RTEN DU RANG BZHIN GYI THAG PAS SMRAS TE It's not separate from his body and mind. Me is not separate from my body and mind, because ...

And we learned this idiom last time. Don't say DER MED DON GZHAN. It's almost like you got to say the four syllables together.

DER MED DON GZHAN. Me is not something which is totally unconnected to my body and mind. It's not something which is ...

If you take away the body and mind, it's not like me could float around on its own without a body and mind. Okay. And then he said, just because there's no me which is floating around, which is totally not connected to my body and mind, doesn't mean that it's automatically not separate from the body and mind.

You could be separate from the body and mind automatically, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're floating around as some separate thing which has no connection to the body and mind. You can be ... Me can be separate from body and mind naturally, but that doesn't mean there has to be a soul floating around which is not connected at all to the body and mind.

There can be something not totally connected to the body and mind which is not totally unconnected to the body and mind. Well, I'll say it again. Well, it's kind of the difference between the soul and Michael.

Okay. So, what the other guy is trying to say is, Michael does have some existence sort of independent from his body and mind, but if you took away the body and mind, there wouldn't be that, Michael. Like some separate soul or something like that.

That's where he is. But he also threw in the word the killer, rang shing gi, automatically. So, once you throw the word automatically into a Buddhist argument, it's already a stupid argument.

Now, whether what he said might have worked without the automatically, I don't think we're going to get a chance to see. Okay. But we're headed for the automatically.

We're going to shoot him on the automatically. We're not going to say, is it possible there's a Michael that's not exactly connected to his body and mind without there being a Michael who's totally free of his body and mind. We're not going to talk about that, which would have been nice.

We're going to talk about he used the word automatically. We're going to attack him on the automatically. Okay.

I'll say it again. No, I'll say it again. This one, this one, jel me dun shen, totally unconnected, independent of body and mind.

This one, lightly related to the body and mind. How's that? Okay.

Yeah, that's all. Yeah, that's all. Jel me dun shen emphasizes completely independent of body and mind.

If you took away body and mind, it would still be floating around. Okay. But, and it would have been nice if we attacked him on that, but we don't.

At least not right now. Please read. Good.

Good. Yeah, we just kind of, this is kind of, what do you call that? Dogmatic answer, okay?

Kyap te, you know. Yeah. If Michael doesn't exist, it's totally different from his body and mind.

He can't exist as something kind of connected to his body and mind if you add the word naturally. Because, here we go. If something exists naturally, rang shing kyi drum na, if something exists naturally, then it would have to, guh, exist as something you could point to, okay, or you could consider completely separate, lok su, and unconnected to the body and mind.

If something existed naturally, it could not have a dependent relationship. Because naturally means not dependent. Okay?

So if something existed by nature, it would have to exist as something totally unconnected. Because if it was in any way connected, you can't use the word nature. Because that's built in.

Okay? Kyap te. Here you go, Sugeng.

If you get it right, I'll stop asking you. Tepa. Good.

What's the short definition of dependent origination? Te-do. Te-do.

Yeah, just two syllables. Te-do. Okay?

Ten-do. Definition is te-do. Reliance origination.

It's the definition of dependent origination. Okay, that's all. Yeah.

Are we continuing with a second reason, or are we responding to some interjection of a fault? He said ma-kyap. He said ma-kyap.

Just because there's no totally under-related Michael, doesn't mean there's not a kind of related Michael, automatically. And then we don't attack him on the idea, we just attack him on the automatically part. Okay?

Look, if something's automatic, it wouldn't have any connection to anything at all anyway. Okay? Why?

And, by the way, the te is related, obviously, to the word for to view, or to look. So when you depend on your mom, it means you look to your mom. You know, you look to your mom for help means you rely on your mom.

So the verbs in Tibetan are related. To look to somebody and to depend on somebody is related. So, and rak lepa is a third synonym for depend.

So you've got ten, R-T-E-N you've got te, L-T-O-S and here you have a colloquial rak lepa. What are the pieces? I have no idea.

You just always read it together. Rak lepa. You say rak lepa.

I like one word, rak lepa. So rak lepa means, I don't know, now we got to find a new word. So tenpa is depend upon, tepa is rely upon, and rak lepa means colloquial word.

Lean on. You all need so more. We can rak lepa.

Okay. Depend on. Rely on?

No, no. Lean on. It's kind of lean on.

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Hmm.

[Speaker 1]
When he says, pa jawa lo, how do you know it's not, I mean just, if you didn't know the context so well, would you know that it's a positive rather than a negative? Because he's been playing with degrees of dependence, that's the context. That's how it helps you translate it.

He's trying to repeat for emphasis because he's been talking about degrees of dependence. So he wants to nail it down, you know. He could have said, ma dewa, you're good.

But he wants to hearken back to the complete independence as a jel mey dun shin, right here, jel mey dun shin. So he's trying to nail that word down. Totally unconnected, separate thing.

So he says, unconnected, separate, considered totally out of space. Michael, soul, no body, no mind, floating around, you know, going to the next life. Okay.

Take that. PUM PA LA THOB PA'I RAG LA'I PA YIN NA If something depends on the body and mind, it cannot be natural. It cannot be natural.

Depend is a four-letter word to the natural. Yeah, natural hates the word depends. Okay.

Okay. Exactly. Yeah, you can say that.

Or by nature. Sometimes I say, through some nature of its own. Why do I say some?

Because it has a nature, but it's not the nature that you're attributing to it. It's a little bit pejorative. It's pejorative.

Okay. It means he says he has some nature, but oh man. She claims to have some understanding, but oh man.

Okay, so some in English. When you say in English, through some nature of its own, you are criticizing the word nature. You're saying, come on.

When you say, he's got some excuse for not paying me today, but it means you don't believe it. When you say some, so sometimes I like to translate it as through some nature of its own, meaning I know it's no such thing. When you say through a nature of its own, you are allowing that it could exist.

So that's one of the tests I use when I open a Buddhist translation. If they say it has a nature, it doesn't have a nature. I'm suspicious that the author doesn't understand that this nature is totally non-existent.

You've got to say some nature. He's got some excuse for not coming to class, but ... Siddhartha and the Rakhle, are those positives?

They are positives, yeah. I mean, you can read it as an objective, a leaning on the sense of relying, but it's kind of artificial. But again, he's piling up a positive here because he wants to nail it down.

He didn't have to say Rakhlepa. He just wanted to nail it down. Okay, all right, okay.

[Speaker 2]
He doesn't say the self-existence here?

[Speaker 1]
Yes. And don't forget, in different schools, sometimes natural is okay, and self-existence is not okay. So it's only in the higher school that you have ...

We did it at China Soft Power. We spent an hour on 20 synonyms for self-existence. And they're not all the same in all schools.

Some schools would say heat is in fire, but fire doesn't exist from its own side, for example. So, yeah, okay. All right.

Nipa-ni, what is nipa? Let's go back.

[Speaker 2]
We just finished the first way that we can say fire.

[Speaker 1]
Did we?

[Speaker 2]
Right there.

[Speaker 1]
Where? I don't remember what that is. Here?

Here, too. Oh, yeah, okay. We can take the me in two different ways.

But here's the second one. No? Okay.

All right, here's the second way to take me. Okay. Please repeat.

Please read. By the way, your text, you want to explain it to our guests? What is your text?

So we're taking 10 different texts from 10 different eras of Buddhism. We're covering 25 centuries of Buddhism. So each guy's text is like three centuries.

[Speaker 2]
So my text is written by this absolutely fabulous author who was a teacher in a monastery. And he's nearing the end of his life, and he's eloquently written about all things about Buddhism. And he's like, Oh, there's something I've got to say.

[Speaker 1]
I've got to get this book out. It's like one of the last books he ever wrote. And this book is about the most important thing that we need to understand in order to reach enlightenment.

And that is precisely how is it that there is no self? What does that mean? And so he goes through, and he looks at the four schools of Buddhist philosophy, and he gets into those differences between them, not in a really expansive way the way that Ben's book does, but like in a way that you can take it and go sit on the cushion, and meditate on that thing, and realize.

That's it. So her book is of a genre of literature called meditation manual, emptiness meditation manual. It's specifically an emptiness meditation manual.

Tattoo. We call it tattoo. Maybe.

Okay, go. Nippanyi. Okay, cool.

Nippanyi, second way we can take the me, I guess. What's ngan dzin len kyi? The inborn holding to I.

Yeah. So the one you're born with. Which oftentimes after that they will immediately say, even bugs have it.

We also have the distinction between the inborn tendency to think me, and the inborn tendency to hold to an I. And this one is using dzin, so I'm thinking this one is the second of the two. Remember?

I don't remember, but this says the one you're born with, tendency to hold on to a me in a wrong way. In a wrong way, right? Okay.

Now, if the self, dak, if utpala, or Michael, existed in the way that this ancient habit holds it to be, which means from past lifetimes, which we had the moment we were born, if Michael existed the way this habit of holding to Michael thinks Michael exists, okay, but that one is pumbatang to me. Yeah, it doesn't have any relationship to Michael's body and mind. Okay, if the ...

Let's talk about Michael, as I have always thought of Michael since the day I was born, because of my past life seeds. Okay? That Michael has no relation to Michael's body and mind.

Why? Because it would either have to be the same as Michael's body and mind, which here is called one, or it would have to be different from Michael's body and mind, which is here called separate. Okay?

Which he stretches to mean one or many. Okay? So either Michael, that I think of as me since the day I was born, is the same as my body and mind, or it's something separate from my body and mind.

Okay, got it? And this is part of a famous proof called ... Yeah.

If something exists from its own side, it's either got to be one thing that exists from its own side, or it has to be more than one thing that exists. And I like that for many. I like that for many.

Yeah, more than one. I mean, play with it. It's your translation, but ...

Look, if there's something that exists from its own side, like the husband in the kitchen. I didn't do anything, husband. You walk in the kitchen, he yells at you, which means you don't take any responsibility for him.

He's not coming from ... You yelled at your children last week. So that husband, according to Buddhism, is emptiness.

Don't exist. Could not exist. Okay?

I didn't do anything, husband. So if he did exist, okay, he'd either have to be one husband or two husbands. Oh, sorry, one husband or more than one husband.

Okay? If you can establish that he's neither one husband nor more than one husband, then he can't be a ... husband.

That's all. It's an ancient Buddhist proof. Are there any ...

Is there a coffee cup in this room? Well, is there one? No.

Is there more than one? No. Well, since everything in the universe has to be one or more than one, there's no coffee cups in the room.

That's all. It's an old Buddhist proof. Okay?

So Michael doesn't exist in his body and mind because he doesn't exist as the same as his body and mind, and he doesn't exist as more than one with his body and mind. Okay? And the khyabpa we don't have to talk about because we already talked about it.

What is the khyabpa here, the famous khyabpa? What's the famous necessity that this proof is built on? There has to be something.

If something is not blank or blank, it can't be what? If Michael doesn't exist, it can't be something blank. Yeah.

If it's not one, it cannot be many. Good. No, well, no, that's not the khyabpa.

If something exists, it either has to be one or more than one. That's the khyabpa. Yeah, that's all.

So he says, Look, I'm not going to go over the khyabpa again. We already did that. Okay?

We already covered the fact that if an existing thing is neither one existing thing or more than one existing thing, it can't be an existing thing. I mean, it's so obvious it's hard to think about it. Do you have a banana?

No. Why? Because I don't have one and I don't have more than one.

Got it? It's very basic. It's so basic it's hard to think.

Okay. Got it? No.

Can you loan me $10? Can you loan me a $10 bill? No.

Why? Because I don't have one $10 bill and I don't have more than one $10 bill. Understand?

Okay. That covers every $10 bill.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Unless you're worried. Okay, here we go.

[Speaker 2]
...

[Speaker 1]
Let's stop there just so we don't get indigestion. Okay. ...

Now, the khyapa, everybody agrees. Nobody's got a problem with the khyapa. If something exists, it's got to be either one or more than one.

We're all okay on that. Now we just have to prove that Michael is not one and the same as his parts and he's not separate from his parts, which would be more than one. Okay, got it?

So we're going to cover those two. Is Michael one and the same as his parts or is Michael separate from his parts, which is more than one? The dangpo means, the first version of the reason is Michael is not the same as his body and mind.

Okay, one, which is one. So Choney Lama throughout here is stretching the meaning of one and many. ...

Michael does not exist as one with his body and mind. Okay. This so-called Michael, dende dak, this so-called Michael self, doesn't exist as one and the same with his body and mind because if he did, there would be three logical problems.

If he did, there would be three logical problems. If Michael was his body and mind, there would be three logical problems. It would be damaged, right?

Damaged in logic means there'd be this problem, okay, inconsistency of three different types, three different logical problems here. Number one. Let's number them so we can remember.

Okay, so here's one. Here's two. And...

Okay, here we go. Somebody's got to get the scan up. Good luck.

There is a problem. Well, maybe not.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, let's go.

[Speaker 1]
Let's try to do it without the scan. The scan means we got to go look at the original carving because there seems to be a problem. Okay.

And by the way, the reason we have these things typed out is 31 years of work in the refugee camp typing these scriptures. And we've scanned and typed about five million pages. So we have them available.

We can search them. And that's the only reason we can have this class. Okay, here we go.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
I think it's okay. I don't think we have to check the... I don't think we have to check the scan.

Okay. Okay. Anybody?

It's ridiculous to accept the self that doesn't have a body, an object, something that appears. Yeah, something like that. If Michael is his body and mind, then there's no sense to talk about a self.

Then just talk about body and mind. Why talk about Michael? If Michael is his body and mind, then just talk about body and mind.

Why talk about Michael? Got it? It would be meaningless to accept a Michael.

If Michael was his body and mind, then why talk about Michael? He's just body and mind. So why do you keep mentioning Michael?

If Michael is his body and mind, then why do you need a separate word? Okay, got it?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, but why do you say combination if he's already that?

[Speaker 1]
Why do you have to have another word? Just call it Michael's body, Michael's mind. Why talk about Michael?

Okay. Why do you have a word Michael if Michael is his body and mind? Okay.

That's the cik in Ciktu Deo. So that's the first problem of saying it's one. He is his body and mind.

Then who's he? Why do you have to have a separate word? It's just a body and mind.

Who's he if he is his body and mind? Why have him he? Okay?

It's so simple it's hard. Okay, number two. And it is okay.

I'm going to swipe out the question mark. That's a nasty smudge. You want to show it to everybody?

This is what we got to deal with. Can you show the line before? The end of the line before?

[Speaker 2]
Sure, yeah, that's fine.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, that's nasty. By the way, this is why we have Christina Kasago. Where are you?

This is why we have her project. So they found 300,000 books in Mongolia. 60% are repeats.

So should we ignore them? No, because this guy slopped the ink. Maybe he was wiping his nose.

But maybe a different printing, the guy didn't slop the ink. So we got to care about all of them. Dark cheek, now go to the next one.

There is something there. I think there is something there. I don't think it's just a smudge.

But it's totally, I can't. We need another carving. We have, by the way, we have a printing.

I have it at home. I have Choney Lama's works printed. Hello.

[Speaker 2]
Hello.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it's a La'an, I think. It is, very nice. Okay, show it to people.

Dark cheek, La'an.

[Speaker 2]
I just put it in.

[Speaker 1]
No, because it's just a smudge. I wouldn't, it's obviously correct.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, I see, yeah, okay, we can do that.

[Speaker 2]
Well, we didn't have it at the time.

[Speaker 1]
You can go like this. Okay. So let's read the second.

This is the second reason why it would be illogical. The first one is, if Michael is his body and mind, then why you have a word Michael? Just call it body and mind.

Because when you say Michael's body and mind, you imply there's something separate from the body and mind, which is having the body and mind. Okay? Dark cheek, Nyi La'ang, DUM MA YIN RIGS PAR LTA BA DANG Then you would also have to, then it would also have to be okay, RIGS PAR, okay?

Then it would also have to be okay to take a single self, just one self, dark cheek, Nyi, precisely one self, and divide it into many. Now it makes sense. You'd have to divide Michael into many.

Why? Because if he is his body and mind, which is plural, then we'd have to say, Michael's is his body and mind. Because if Michael is his body and mind, since there's two things, body, one, and mind, two, then there'd have to be two Michaels.

Okay? There'd have to be Michael's is his body and mind. Okay?

Got it? It's supposed to sound silly, because it is. Okay?

And thirdly, DENG DANG BA'I SNGA DE A self like that, a Michael like that, okay, would have to, if you tell one, come in and out of existence. GEN GCIG GCIG PA So the definition of MITAPA, anybody for $100? That wake you up.

I want the long one.

[Speaker 2]
GEN GCIG GCIG PA Now I'm in trouble.

[Speaker 1]
That's a $10 answer if I ever hear it. GEN GCIG GCIG PA You're close. It sounds like you're tickling his kid.

GEN GCIG GCIG PA Come on, better, better. Give me a $100 answer. You're close.

You're going to go for the whole thing? Come on, dad. You need money.

You got a kid. GEN GCIG GCIG PA Say again.

[Speaker 2]
Say it slow.

[Speaker 1]
GEN GCIG GCIG PA I know what's your wife's name, but just... GEN GCIG GCIG PA You got it. Do it slower.

GEN GCIG GCIG PA GCIG GCIG GCIG PA GEN GCIG GCIG PA GCIG GCIG OK. The long definition of a permanent, changing, which means going in and out of existence every millisecond. Going in and out of existence.

On, off, on, off, on, off, on, off. Say GCIG GCIG. GEN GCIG GCIG PA GCIG GCIG GCIG PA GCIG GCIG GCIG PA GCIG GCIG GCIG GCIG GCIG Say again.

Yeah, definition of impermanence, which is a big deal in Buddhism, right? See, it's good to know. It's going in and out of existence every millisecond.

Okay? S-K-A-D. Okay?

Sakatagatake. So here, then it must be correct if Michael is the same as Michael's body and mind, then it must be the case that Michael must be going in and out of existence every millisecond, because his body and mind are. Okay?

I guess we would say that. But they want Michael to be more solid than that.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
My, no, my, my, no, my.

[Speaker 2]
No, listen.

[Speaker 1]
I mean, let's just talk the parlance of the world, right? Normal jikten gi wong du che pe. What did Nagarjuna say?

Whatever the farmers say, I say. Okay? So, in that the farmers say, you know, Michael had a bad day.

But Michael's the same. You see? Michael, which stretches over the 24 hours, had ups and downs.

Okay? But Michael doesn't go up and down. Michael, had Michael's body got stronger or weaker, Michael's mind got sleepier or unsleepier.

But Michael didn't change. Michael didn't vary all day. That's the point.

Okay? If Michael was, if to be Michael was to be Michael's body and mind, which is the correct way to say it. I'll say it again.

If to be Michael was to be Michael's body and mind, then ma ... You see, he would also vary like this. You see?

But he doesn't. So, in the world, you think Bhrigita is a straight line. Bhrigita exists through the whole day.

And her body and mind go through changes. But Bhrigita, we don't say less Bhrigita or more Bhrigita at three o'clock. Well, that's a good question.

They would like to think that Bhrigita is kind of unchanging. They would like to think that, yeah. Bhrigita is an idea.

It's a demoduchi, technically. Neither mind nor body, right? A changing thing which is neither mind nor body.

But she's the fountain kind of changing thing? What's that mean? Yeah, you go to Rome, you say, I want to see the Treviny Fountain.

Or you go to Yellowstone Park and there's a geyser. But it has the same general shape, even though new water is coming up. It still has this shape.

Now, he's going to approve the three objections. He's going to go deeper. What was the first one?

Yeah, if Michael is Michael's body and mind, then why do you need the word Michael? Okay, if Michael is nothing separate from his body and mind, why do you even have a word Michael? Okay, so here we go.

[Speaker 2]
GNOD CHE I'm going to stop there just for digestion sake.

[Speaker 1]
Let's do this piece and then we'll come back to it later, okay? GNOD CHE DANG PO NYON TE Here's the first problem, which is what? If Michael is Michael's body and mind, then why do you have a separate Michael?

Why do you talk about Michael? Then the answer is CHIR. Yeah, generally speaking, DAG NI is the PHUNG PO NYE BA LENG PA PO Oh, it's the thing that takes on the person.

[Speaker 2]
Good, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Michael is the person who took his body and mind at birth. So it's almost like Michael existed before his body and mind, because someone had to take the body and mind at birth, which recalls the first of the eight great proofs of kunshi. NYON TE DANG PO NYON TE DANG PO NYON TE Yeah, if there's no Michael, who takes rebirth?

Okay, who takes a body and mind? If Michael is his body and mind, then who took his body and mind when they got reborn? Got it?

There's got to be a NYE BA LENG PA PO, a taker-on-erer. You say... Good, exactly.

And it's the PHUNG POs which are taken on by that Michael. It's the body and mind which are taken on. Michael cannot be his body and mind, because Michael has to...

Michael has to put on his body and mind when he's born, like his clothes. First there's a Michael, and then he dresses. The shirt is the body, the pants is the mind.

Then someone's got to put them on when they're born. And then the body and mind are what he puts on. That's the NYE BAR LENG BYA.

That's what he puts on. NYE BAR LENG BYA means the body and mind are what he puts on. So NYE BAR LENG BYA is the object of NYE BAR LENG.

The taken-on thing? He's got to put his clothes on, but he's got to have a body to put his clothes on. So Michael cannot be his clothes.

It doesn't make sense. RIG PA'I NUS There's a logical problem there. Yeah, yeah, 5, 10, 19 points.

Okay, cool. Yeah, I think I will point out that in today's class, it was easier because Geshe-la didn't say PUM PO. I didn't say heaps.

I didn't say five heaps. It distracts a normal person. It's easier to call it, it's easier to strip it down to body and mind.

When you're talking in this kind of context with normal people in the modern world, if you refer to body and mind as five heaps, you already put a barricade in your reader's way. They have to remember what's the five heaps, which is just body and mind. So this might, I'm not pushing you, but I'm saying this might be a place where you might want to use body and mind, yeah, rather than five heaps.

But when you're in Stanley's text, and he's pointing out the difference between rupa as a heap and rupa as an ayatana, you've got to use heap. Okay, yeah, okay. Yeah, now ACI was 27 years ago, and I was really into heaps.

So yeah, to rewrite ACI is a huge job, and I just don't have time to do it. But yeah, I think when you teach ACI, body and mind is a lot easier. It depends on the context.

Yeah, it depends on the context. It depends on the context. Because korway gyi chir, rim gyi chir, phunpo nam le, tsor dan, du shi lo shi, phunpo shak, first chapter, Abhidharmakosha, there's a reason there's five heaps.

It's that two of them cause all the trouble in the world. So if you just say body and mind, you lose that whole explanation. Okay, here we go.

Yi ke wong kun, sanam yeshe, tsong tsong shing, sanam yeshe, le chung we, dang pa kun yi, tob pa shok. Shukri shmukri. Yeah, it's getting hot.

It's getting hot. But because they offered umbrellas to people.