Медитации на пустоту: объяснение шагов к пониманию того, что ничто не является самим собой, занятие 49

[Speaker 1]
Today, I'm going to give you a brief introduction on how to use the

[Speaker 2]
Ganesh Chakravartty's commentary on the Ganesh Chakravartty's commentary on the Ganesh Chakravartty's commentary on the Ganesh Chakravartty's commentary on the Ganesh Chakravartty's commentary on the Ganesh Chakravartty's commentary on the Ganesh Chakravartty's commentary on the Ganesh Chakravartty's commentary on the Ganesh Chakravartty's commentary on the Ganesh Chakravartty's commentary on the Ganesh Chakravartty's commentary on the Ganesh Chakravartty's commentary on the Ganesh Chakravartty's commentary on the Ganesh Chakravartty's commentary on the Ganesh Chakravartty's commentary on the Ganesh Chakravartty's commentary on the Ganesh Chakravartty's commentary on the Ganesh Chakravartty's commentary on the Ganesh Chakravart

[Speaker 1]
Ganesh Chakravartty's commentary on the Ganesh Chakravartty's commentary on the Ganesh Chakravartty's commentary on the Ganesh Chakravartty's commentary on the Ganesh Chakravartty's commentary on the Ganesh Chakravartty's commentary on the Ganesh Chakravartty's commentary on the Ganesh Chakravartty's commentary on the Ganesh Chakravartty's commentary on the Ganesh Chakravartty's commentary on the Ganesh Chakravartty's commentary on the Ganesh Chakravartty's commentary on the Ganesh Chakravartty's commentary on the Ganesh Chakravartty's commentary on the Ganesh Chakravartty's commentary on the Ganesh Chakravartty's commentary on the Ganesh Chakravartty's commentary on the Ganesh Chakravartty's commentary on the Ganesh Chak

[Speaker 2]
So, this is the quiz for class 5, which was a few days ago, so hopefully it's not too long. We're not too far away from the end of the Chakravartty syllogism. We're sort of wrapping that up.

So, as you recall too, among the quotes, there's a commentary to Rupaksana. In there, there's this, it's a sweet quotation.

[Speaker 1]
And he says, there's a way that we can confirm that we have found wayfaring certainty.

[Speaker 2]
Does anyone recall the parts hint of that?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, we didn't have parts? No, no, no. It just needed more than one.

[Speaker 2]
So, we're talking about Chittagong, and what's the main thing about Chittagong?

[Speaker 1]
If it can't be one, then it can't be many. Yeah, the necessity of, there's only two possibilities, right? So that's the first thing.

Jai Sankapa says, we experience that there are only two possible options, and therefore we have certainty.

[Speaker 2]
Then how do we know we've found it? How do we test that? Do you recall how we test that?

[Speaker 1]
Our certainty? We think to ourselves, the self doesn't even exist, even a little bit. Jai Sankapa says the view that we find, we realize the object, which is the inborn tendency to fall to a medium that is transitory.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, this is not a great translation, so I'm translating it.

[Speaker 1]
Okay.

[Speaker 2]
It's all in words.

[Speaker 1]
It can't be quite right, can it?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, okay. So now we're going on to the next, the second clip, the two syllogisms about the lack of self-nature. So what are the components of the Nandini view?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, cool, right. The carriage.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, right.

[Speaker 1]
There's something about the relationship of the carriage to something in seven ways.

[Speaker 2]
If you don't mind us doing it out of order, I thought we could piece it together as a group. Do you want it in order? I think you're asking too much.

[Speaker 1]
But the order was in ordinance, but the order didn't make sense. It wasn't logical.

[Speaker 2]
No, I believe the order is logical, and then the way it's presented maybe is in a different order that I don't yet understand the logic of. I would never say it's illogical.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, Geshe-la said it was illogical.

[Speaker 2]
That's him, and he sees clearly that this is me and I'm proud of it. It is not its parts. Well, heck, I missed.

Number two, it is not its parts. More specifically, it's not other than its parts.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, yeah?

[Speaker 2]
Which I think is important. So it means eaten? Yeah.

Maybe. It's not, I mean, you know. Yeah, for sure.

For sure it's important. Okay, it's not. It's not?

No, let's see, man.

[Speaker 1]
No, no, it doesn't go on and on like your text.

[Speaker 2]
It's not the collection. Yeah, that's true. Like one or maybe, or not both?

Kind of just kind of goes. It's not the collection. It's not the shape.

It's not the collection. It's not the parts. Your shape was wrong.

Oh, right. It's not possessed of, like, right. Those parts are also not possessed of it or something.

It doesn't have its parts. The parts don't have it. It's not in its parts.

It's not the collection. Its parts are not in it. It's not the simple collection and it's not the shape.

Its parts are not it. And it's not us.

[Speaker 1]
And we're going to be going into it.

[Speaker 2]
Let's. Yes, let's. That'd be super.

[Speaker 1]
But first.

[Speaker 2]
Oh. Aren't you through? Automatically.

Oh, by its own nature. No, self-existent.

[Speaker 1]
Naturally.

[Speaker 2]
The automatically itself. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Even a little bit. Oh.

[Speaker 2]
Not even a little bit.

[Speaker 1]
Huh.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, okay. Carriage. It's a car.

Car.

[Speaker 1]
It's a car. Car. Car.

[Speaker 2]
Vehicle. Chariot. Car.

[Speaker 1]
Ooh. Ooh. That's nice.

[Speaker 2]
Chariot.

[Speaker 1]
Who's that? Artemis or something?

[Speaker 2]
It's a woman. It might not be. Artemis is not a woman.

[Speaker 1]
She's a goddess. You guys ready? She is not.

Chariot. She's a half goddess.

[Speaker 2]
She's a who? A half goddess. Artemis.

I don't know. Come on.

[Speaker 1]
Are you saying that women are half goddesses? No. Some of them are goddesses.

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Fine.

[Speaker 2]
I'm a goddess.

[Speaker 1]
Am I in the right place?

[Speaker 2]
I don't know. I've got a couple more slides. That's where I am.

[Speaker 1]
Oh. Oh, two pieces. That's where we are.

God's a... Five percent, maybe? Kiss your microphone.

Oh, sorry. Sorry, Molly. I didn't start talking yet.

[Speaker 2]
I'm just snoring into the microphone.

[Speaker 1]
Are you ready?

[Speaker 2]
Did you get it?

[Speaker 1]
Sorry. No.

[Speaker 2]
I'm trying to get there.

[Speaker 1]
Keep looking. Look for a five and a parenthesis or something. For the moment, we're going to be talking about God.

Just a moment. Okay. Good.

Oh, by the way, seven arguments for why a car is not its parts or something. Okay? Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Good. Good.

[Speaker 1]
Good. DE'I PHYI CHEN means shing tak, let's take the car. RGYUR RANG GI YAN NAG GI BRTAN DU LA ZHIG GIS SMRAS PA'I It doesn't exist by nature based upon its parts.

Okay? The parts are there and it's resting on the parts. It doesn't exist in that way automatically.

And then here's a word I didn't know. KAR SHONG, it's a dish. It's a kitchen dish, okay?

Like a plate. And SHO is SHONG, yogurt. Okay?

So in the way that you would pour yogurt into a bowl or spoon yogurt into a bowl, okay? It's not the case that it is separate by nature from the parts. It's like pouring the car into the parts.

Okay? So the yogurt is not the bowl. The yogurt is distinct from the bowl by nature.

Although the bowl is supporting the yogurt, okay? So it's not the case that a car and its parts are similar to yogurt and the bowl. Okay?

It does rest on the bowl, but it's not true that the car is essentially separate from the parts in the way that the yogurt is essentially separate from the bowl. Okay? Cool?

So there goes another possibility. Okay? And again, the numbering doesn't match the numbering of the verse.

So I numbered the verse for you, and then I'm attempting to link them to the proofs. Okay? Some of them are easy and some of them are not.

Okay? So where are we? Number one, right?

[Speaker 2]
Right?

[Speaker 1]
You see? Sorry, I got lost here. Okay, good.

Okay, go ahead. Yeah. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Okay. Okay.

Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Hmm, how's it different from the last one? Anyway, here we go.

DE'I PHYI CHEN, take the car. KHYOD RANG GI YAN LA LAR ZHING GI BRTEN NAS KYANG MED TE It's not the case that it depends on its parts self-existently. But how does that differ from the last one?

KHYOD RANG GI YAN LA LAR ZHING GI BRTEN NAS KYANG MED TE I don't know. Yeah, the last one said ...

[Speaker 2]
By nature as relying? Like it doesn't rest on its parts and its parts don't rest on it?

[Speaker 1]
No, I don't think so. KHYOD RANG GI YAN LA LAR ZHING GI BRTEN It doesn't exist on the basis of its parts by nature. This one is ...

It doesn't rely by nature on its parts. How those two are different, I don't know. Let's look at the example, okay?

Let's look at the pe. RE DE, it took me a long time to find. RE DE is a kind of small shield that you wear on your forearm.

But it's also a tent made of yak hair. What do you call it? Braided yak hair.

So that's what I take it to be here. So, RE GYEN, John Doe, can sit in a tent. In the same way, the car is depending on its parts, and it is not essentially separate from them.

So in this case, John Doe is in the tent, and yogurt was on the plate. Okay? Okay.

Good luck. Oh, thanks. You're very welcome.

Okay. The trick may be in the tent as opposed to on the plate. Yeah, it doesn't rest in its parts.

And maybe the last one was rest on its parts. Okay. Maybe.

Maybe that's the distinction. The car is not in its parts, nor is it on its parts. Okay?

Maybe. Maybe that's the difference. Okay, here's the third one.

Even more confusion. Yeah, it's not in its parts. It's not on its parts.

In and on. How's that? Maybe it's the difference between a tent and a plate.

Okay? Maybe. DENG PA'ANG I think it has to be men, personally.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
This is a noun. He's possessed of it. Okay?

So this has to be totally corrupt. And God knows what it was. You know?

So we need to work on the skin. We need to work off the skin. There's no such word.

Yeah, just be aware that John possesses a payang. So it's not jimbayang. It's John possesses a payang.

And I have no idea. Bawa, maybe a goiter? I mean, more intimately connected?

I don't know. I can't even guess. Okay?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and here's how I will read it, okay? And if someone could look up a scan, it would be nice if I could look at it. Well, have someone else look it up.

Okay? We're talking about 16b. Folio 16b.

If you could show it to me, I could... You want to take over the screen? Why don't you just take over the screen and everybody can see it?

Okay. Yeah, it's not pretty, I know. We have this karma that the most important books were carved badly.

Can I have another copy of it? I'll find it somewhere.

[Speaker 2]
So 16b. Where is it here?

[Speaker 1]
That's... That might be 17 there. That's 17a.

So I want 202.

[Speaker 2]
Oh.

[Speaker 1]
No, isn't it right there above the blue one?

[Speaker 2]
No, that's 15b. That's two.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I want 202. I'll be bingo. There you go.

I want 202. Yeah. Now, let's see.

It's funny, I'm moving around my cursor. There's the tent. Oh, palang.

Oh, it's cow. He's on a cow. He has a cow.

Easy. Wow. Wait, keep it up somehow.

Oh, yeah, one more thing. Yeah, look, predicted. Min.

It says min right there. And then it says palang. Yay.

No, it's not yin, it's min. It's the opposite. No, earlier in the book, right?

What, earlier in the book? Earlier in the book, he said, oh, this can't be min. Oh, yeah, that's not so important.

This one is important because it's the opposite. Okay, so this is min. Okay.

And...

[Speaker 2]
Take the plane back so I can see what you're doing.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, sorry, yeah, I should take the plane back. Here we go. And now this is easy now.

Yeah. Palang. Now it's easy.

Okay. So many of your graduate students have to go back and change the database. Om mani padme hum.

Okay, here we go, you guys ready? Dechay chen, let's take the car. It is not possessed of.

It doesn't have its parts self-existently. The car doesn't have its parts self-existently. So before it was on its parts, then it was in its parts, and now it doesn't have its parts self-existently.

And then we say na. It does not have its parts self. It does not possess its parts self-existently.

Why? Now, he gives two options. Either it has the parts this way, or it has the parts this way, and it doesn't.

Okay, so he gives you two options. Alright, here's the first option.

[Speaker 2]
I mean they're universal. There's only two options.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, they're like... I'm in Pennsylvania. Le chenpa.

They don't have their parts. The car doesn't possess its parts in the way that Devadatta possesses his cow. Which is kind of an outside thing.

Okay, so the car is not over here, and has a rope, and possesses its parts in the way that this farmer has a rope connected to his cow and owns the car. The cow? That's not how the car owns its parts.

Not like a farmer and his cow. And neither is it more an intimate connection where the farmer has his ears. Yeah, which is more connected.

Okay? So the car doesn't have the parts in a sort of distant relationship the way a farmer would have a cow on a rope. Neither does the car have its parts in a very intimate relationship where it's like you and your ears.

Okay? By definition. Yeah, in and of itself.

In and of itself. He repeats, in and of itself. So neither does it possess its parts in a way where the parts are self-existently out there separate.

Neither does it possess those parts in a way in which they are self-existently one entity, such as you and your ears. Okay, cool? It's kind of nice.

Therefore, it does not possess its parts self-existently, because it doesn't possess them as something inherently out there, neither as something inherently in here. Possessed intimately like my ears. Okay?

Got it? You okay? You alright?

Now we're going to those weird choices at the end that have to do with the shape. The outline. By the way, I suggest you use the outline.

It's the car and its outline. What's the relationship between the outline of the car and the car? To me, when you say outline, the argument becomes a lot more interesting.

Please read.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I'm sorry.

[Speaker 1]
I said outline, but actually there's two choices here. Yeah. Is the car all its parts together, and is the car its outline?

Like this. You know, the whole car. Is that the car?

Okay. And here's our discussion of those two options. Six is about the tsokpa.

This is difficult. The Tibetan is difficult. Dampo mi te te.

The first option is wrong, that the car is all the parts of the car put together. Okay? Because in that case, the car would be the collection of the parts laid out on the ground separately.

Okay. Madig means not put together, not assembled. Madig means not assembled.

Yeah. If the car were the sum of its parts, the car would also be the sum of its parts laid out in a warehouse, you know, and not connected, not put together by the mechanic. What's a common colloquial use of this verb, assembled?

Yeah, tsokpa, going through. Look at the cursor.

[Speaker 2]
You mean through it? Yeah. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it means okay. Digidue. Digidue.

[Speaker 2]
Digidue.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, learn it. Digidue. Say digidue.

[Speaker 2]
Digidue.

[Speaker 1]
It means assemble?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
It's a colloquial word for everything's fine. If I leave class early, digidue. Yeah, digidue.

Digidue. It means everything's assembled in order. I don't know why they say that, but it's one of the most useful Tibetan phrases you can know.

People are going to ask you all the time, digidue. And you say, yeah, digidue. Digidue.

Yeah, that's cool, man. That's cool, digidue. It means it's assembled.

Yeah. Okay. Huh?

Duk. Duk is, yeah. Duk.

Yeah, it is. Ancient word for sit down. And the opposite of that, for $50.

[Speaker 2]
Damn. In what context? $25, $25.

[Speaker 1]
Somebody tell Xiaoping. $25, $25. And $50.

Because neither one gave me what I really wanted. The context? Yeah.

The context was, Choney Lama talks about the possible parts of a person that could... No. Vinaya.

Oh, you're not supposed to stand with a man, close to a man. Not even close. You're not supposed to pee over the wall.

No. That's always the case. There are two ways in which you might not be in harmony with the rest of the Sangha.

Oh, trellis? You stand up? Yeah, you're standing, and you don't sit in the trellis.

Duk. Okay. Gan.

Deng. Bu. Which you got yesterday, but you didn't get today.

It means to stand, meaning you refuse to sit in that trellis, in your proper trellis. Okay, here we go. All right.

So here, if the wagon were the collection of all its parts, then if all the parts were laid out on the ground, that would also be a wagon. Okay. Number seven.

By the way, number seven relates to the outline. The yip. You say yip.

Yip. Yippee-yi-yay. Yippee-yi-yay.

Okay. Okay, go ahead. Yip.

[Speaker 2]
Yip.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, the last option, which is the seventh of the seven, which the outline could be the car. No, because you could take the outline of each separate piece of the car, or you could take the outline of all the pieces together, But that's not in itself a car. The outline, the shape of the car, is not the car.

Although it's tempting to think that way. Once you have something that looks like that, you're more likely to think it's a car. Configuration.

Anyway. Now, a word of warning. A word of caution.

Here we go. It is a word of caution. You're about to read a word of caution.

No, you're about to read a word of caution.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, what's it say? I'm sorry, but he's saying nominally. When you search for this, you cannot find it.

It is there, and I'm not sure which one, though.

[Speaker 1]
Because it only exists nominally. Well, what it really says is... By the way, you were close.

You can look this way. You can look for the car in these seven. These seven different ways.

And it is true that you won't find the car. You can look for it in these seven places, in these seven relationships, and you won't find anything. But still...

Yeah, the cars exist. I mean, nominally. In name only.

Which means in picture only. Car makes it picture only. They exist.

They do exist. I'm not saying cars don't exist. I'm just saying these seven ways, they don't exist.

And in every one of the seven ways, probably he said somewhere, RANG BZHIN GYIS, without seeds. I didn't do anything. I didn't do anything, car.

Okay, got it? Name only, but can it be similar? Very similar, yeah.

Very similar, yeah. And then to prove, he's going to use LUNG GI GRUB BYED. Yeah, nominally speaking, there's cars.

Because the GRUB PA says... There's two famous GRUB PAs. Entering the Middle Way, and entering the Bodhisattva's Way of Love.

Yeah, and two avatars. Bodhisattvacharya, avatar. And then there's a Madhyamaka, avatar.

And we're talking... Guess which one we're talking about? Madhyamaka.

Yeah, okay. Please read the verse that proves that still cars exist.

[Speaker 2]
...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, DE NI, that car, okay? Those cars. DE NI DU'AM In essence, do they exist in essence?

Okay? Or, do they exist in the seven ways that you might hear them described in the world as depending on their parts, or being made of their parts, or being the outline of their parts? It's true.

There's no such car. In those seven ways that the world talks about cars being dependent on their parts, made of their parts, it's true. You can't find a car in any of those seven choices.

But, admit, I admit, mukhi, mukhi, I admit it. But, don't forget. NAM CHE MED PAR What?

Yeah, if you don't dig into it, just let it go. Just get in and turn the key. If you sit there and worry about the parts, you'll never get to San Francisco, or wherever you're going.

NAM CHE MED PAR But if we don't dig into it, jigten len di in the normal world, in the everyday, normal world, it is something which is named based on its parts. You can point to the parts of a car and say, car. And that's okay.

Then you can drive it. But don't examine it, or you might not get where you're going. Then I went and got you the quotation.

Fortunately, it's correct. Okay. Okay, here we go.

Ten tenpa. Different spelling.

[Speaker 2]
Ten tenpa dan mo chik tenpa yang yin de dak ngokpa rak chay kikpar ngeypar jar gu so This is a beautiful sentence, and it's one that you need.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? As if the other ones weren't. Okay.

shingta rangyena dan It is correct to say that nominally speaking, a car and its parts are separate things. Car and car's parts are separate things. Okay, nominally that's correct.

And it's also okay to say that they are ten tenpa, that the parts are the foundation and the car is what sits on the foundation like the cup on the table. That's also okay. You can say the car rests on its parts, the car rests on its parts.

You can also say that to be all the collections of the parts of a car is to be a car. You can say that, this old thing we had in Adam's text over and over again. You can say to be one is to be the other.

To be the car is to be the collection of the parts of the car. You can say that. So there's three things here.

One, can you say cars are separate from their parts? Yes. Can you say that still they have a dependent relationship and that the car rests upon its parts?

Yes. Can you say even that to be all the parts together in a certain configuration, dik, is to be a car? Yes, you can say that.

That's all okay in the normal world. I'm not saying it's not okay. So, if you want it to be not okay, and you want to say no, no, no seven times, you better add some gaccha, wording.

You better add some wording, gaccha wording. RANG BZHIN GYIS, BA'I TSAL, without a karmic picture. You better add some wording like that.

Gaccha and khyepa means, you definitely have to apply jargu. You definitely have to apply the difference or the distinction, khyepa, the distinction of the gaccha wording if you want to goke it. If you want to goke those choices, those three choices.

If you want to deny those three choices, A, that it exists, that it is separate from its parts, B, that it has a dependent original relationship with its parts, and C, that to be the one is to be the other. You can say those things, but if you're trying to deny those three ideas in the seven-part denial, you goddamn well better add some words like self-existently, or from its own side, or without the karmic picture, or something like that. So you're saying gaccha means words that ...

Well, he's saying you better add some distinction where the listener understands you're talking about some kind of gaccha. It's not there. He's just saying if you want it to make sense.

Since those three possibilities are real, they do exist. The car is dependent upon its parts. You better add something from the gaccha, some gaccha-ish thing, to make a distinction.

If you're going to deny those three, you better say something like, ngo rang gi ngun ne, from its own side, or rang shin ki. The only exception is because, you know, the next text. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

In that text, it's a bad thing.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
I think he wanted to do it rang shin ki. Nobody got it. Okay.

I didn't write the book. Write him. Complain.

But he's saying, and he did, in most of them, he added some kind of rang shin ki wording. Okay. Now, that concludes the chikdril.

It concludes the seven parts of the wagon, the car. But can we apply it to people? So now we want the application.

We got those nice little cars. We got all these chiks and drils. Now, can I apply it to me, to Michael?

Is there some way I can apply it to me? Here we go. Good.

Thirty bucks per nge. Because that's the crucial word here. Thirty bucks per nge.

Ring de. And I'll give you a clue. It's only half.

It does mean, the same pronunciation can mean yeti. But I don't think he'll throw a yeti in here after he just dumped the car. It's not rice.

It's not like a grain, though. Ring de. I'm going to give it to you for no money.

I'm going to give it to you for no money. Ring de.

[Speaker 2]
Almost.

[Speaker 1]
Follow the same pattern. Follow the same pattern. Ring de.

So here he threw out the ring. He just said the de. And he says, de dun la jorwa la.

Let's use all this stuff for something real. Dun la jorwa. Let's apply it to our real life.

Shinta de nam dun gyi rigpe tsel ma. If you look for the car using the seven kinds of logic, you won't find it. And this applies in the same pattern to you.

Kansa na. When you're looking for Venerable Utpala, or you're looking for Vivian, or you're looking for Jigme, or you're looking for Aisha. Okay?

All right? Apply it to yourself, he says, which is very Choney Lama. Thank you.

Let's apply it to yourself. Okay, here we go. And he made a syllogism with you as the star.

Okay, here we go. And by the way, I would like to indent syllogisms like this and split them this way, and it's easier for the reader. Okay, here we go.

Good.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and you know, I'm going to give you some homework because I only find six of the seven here. Which one's missing? Number three, maybe.

I'm just saying maybe because I did this in a rush in the car. Okay, so I'm just saying something feels uncomfortable to me. And he's already had them out of order, I think.

And now he's missing one, and maybe we can find it.

[Speaker 2]
Not after the time.

[Speaker 1]
But when he does the discussion down here, he's only got six anyway. So, I don't know. Like, it'd be a nice exercise for you during the break to figure out which one did he leave out, and does there seem to be a reason why he left it out?

Okay, so here we go. Here we are ring-doing from the car to the person. Parallel case, okay?

You understand the car, now let's apply it to me. Khaza Chodchen, let's take Stanley, let's take Vivian, let's take Ben. Okay, take yourself.

Ranggipoompa tendrel rangshin kim mey te. You don't exist in your parts, in your body and mind. You don't exist in your body and mind.

And he gotcha jar. Yeah, he added the words, and notice, it gets boring. Rangshin kim mey te.

Rangshin kim titwa me. Rangshin kim tatwa me. Rangshin kim me.

Rangshin kim me. And then in the last two, he dropped it, okay? I don't know, he got tired of it?

Okay, or it's not necessary, but I think it is. Okay, here we go. You are not in your body and mind, by nature.

Why? Because you are not in your body and mind in a way that you are exactly the same as your body and mind. You are not in your body and mind in the way that you are separate from that body and mind.

You are not in the body and mind, and you are not resting upon the body and mind. Those two are difficult, the difference, right? You don't depend on the body and mind, okay?

And all the parts of the body and mind is not you, and the outline of the body and mind is not you, okay? And we've just applied the seven parts of the car to you, but he only gave six. Okay, so I don't know what happened.

What was that third one that we're not sure?

[Speaker 2]
I think the first one is one of the seven. The first one doesn't rely on...

[Speaker 1]
Oh, maybe it is, maybe.

[Speaker 2]
I was thinking that too, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's a good guess. The first one is number one. It's the Drupje Chö.

It's the Drupje Chö one, okay? Which is this thing here, Rangiputta Narasimhite. It could be.

But is it actually the same? I mean, I thought that. Okay, yeah, it's close.

No, it's not, but anyway, here we go. Okay, go ahead.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, it sounds like ring.

[Speaker 1]
When you say it in the monastery, it's ring-de-jor, ring-de. Okay. Now, the proofs for the first five reasonings of the seven, because these two get treated separately by everybody, tsok and yip, tsok and yip.

The whole collection and the shape, people tend to talk about that separately. So I think he wants to talk about the first five, okay? Now, the first five, the proof, how we prove the first five, as we explained it with the car, you can prove it for yourself.

So for the first five, just follow the way we did it for the car. And not only that, okay? When you talk about options which involve being the same or being separate, you can ring-de back to chik-du-do.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, you can use your old chik-du-do stuff here. When we talk about are you one or are you many, meaning for Choney Lama, are you one and the same as or are you distinct from, which is many, okay? You can go back to chik-du-do.

This kind of feels like his justification for calling chik-du-do being one with your parts or being separate from your parts, okay? Yeah, it sounds like that. Okay.

Now he's going to prove the latter part of his ... Yeah. Please read.

Oh, by the way, you could have said tak-chi-ma-nyi, the two latter, i.e. the two latter reasons. Reasons of the seven, right? Which were tsokpa.

Oops. And yip. And yip.

Okay, here we go. All right. Please read.

Yeah, and I remind you of dok-che, dak-chi, and tak-che. Okay? Three forms of the same verb.

Dok-che is the state of mind that imputes. Dak-chi ... So dok-che is the picture of the pen coming out of the mind, okay?

And then dak-chi is the top and the bottom of the pen, or the color and shape of the pen. And then after the picture arrives on the pieces and poof! comes out a pen, that's called dak-chi.

So they have separate names in Tibetan. I'll say it again. The pen before the picture, which is just the top and the bottom of the pen, those are called dak-chi, what you're going to call a pen.

And then dok-che is the picture coming out of your mind. And then when the dok-che arrives on the dak-chi, poof! you got a dak-chi, which means a finished thing, a named thing, a pictured thing, okay?

And that's the pen. Parts of the pen. Karmic picture.

Pen. What is karmic picture again? Dok-che.

A-un-da-na-do-ga. A-un-da. And there are three tenses of the same verb which people say impute, or project, or something like that.

Call a name, give a name. Yeah, that one too. What's the nickname?

Ming-dok. Yeah, the dok-a name. Okay, all right.

Yeah, are you in your wrong sense? I think you were... You could say that.

The dak-che is the wrong sense. What you come out with at the end, after the picture arrives on the pieces, the finished pen is the wrong sense. The dok-che is kind of the chi-tsen.

The picture that... Okay, so you got it? Three parts.

The parts before your karma opened, the karma opening, and then what you got after the karma opening on the parts, and that's a pen. Or it's a chu-toi. Okay, okay, cool.

And that's... Yeah, that's difficult. Oh, yeah.

Name-erizer. Thing to be named, and then the finished named product. Okay, something like that.

I mean, you can find better words, probably. You can name it a better name. Yeah, okay.

So let's... Did you read the stillages in it? Okay, let's take the collection of the body and mind.

How's that? They are not Michael, because they are what the name Michael is given to. The parts of the pen are not pen.

Okay? The body and mind of Michael is not Michael, because they're what I'm going to give the name Michael. And after I give the name Michael, they will be Michael.

Okay? But he didn't use Michael twice. I feel like somehow he's trying to subtly differentiate between doc and concept.

I don't think so.

[Speaker 2]
Like doc and product labeling.

[Speaker 1]
Well, the second one doesn't exist, and the third one does exist. How's that? They are not a doc.

They are not a self-existent Michael, because they are what Michael gets named Michael. And then we say, I disagree. Just because they are what is named Michael doesn't mean they aren't Michael.

And I say, yes, it is true. If they are what gets the name Michael, they are not yet Michael, because what's given the name isn't the named, finished product. He distinguishes between the two.

I'll say it again. It's incorrect to say that the parts you give the name to is the finished product after you give it the name. Okay?

The pieces of the pen is not the pen that came out after you named it pen. Due to sharing a pen in the past. You've got to say that.

That's the superiority of the mixed-nut school. Okay? We would add to this sentence, due to that you shared a pen in the past and planted the seed.

Okay? They have not gotten that far yet. Okay?

I'll say it again. Let's take Michael's body and mind. They are not Michael yet, because they are just what's called Michael.

Well, why does that follow? Well, look. What's called Michael is not the same as what comes out after you call it Michael.

Okay, got it? Excuse me. She's in the Prasangika.

Stop taking credit for all the good stuff. Yeah, yeah. You just want it to be your school.

No, I'm kidding. I'm kidding. I say it again?

Well, since Utpala got shorted a little bit by Nick, if nobody objects, can I do one more sentence? Okay, here we go. By the way, that was the argument against Michael being all the parts together.

Tsopa, number six. Now, we're going to have the argument against Michael being Michael's outline. Yip, which was number seven in the car.

And we are rinjeng, by the way. We're trying to apply the stupid ideas to me, and that's somehow going to make me more patient when my husband yells at me. Okay, here we go.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Good.

[Speaker 1]
Whoa. Yeah. 300 bucks and word cannot answer and Ben cannot answer.

And sit with it. Sit with it. Do it in pieces.

If you want to split it, I mean, one person could do the first part. It's like 70 bucks each part.

[Speaker 2]
Good.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, 40 bucks for him. 40 bucks for him. Let's talk about the outline of Michael, okay?

Of Michael's body and mind. Okay, let's talk about the outline. Okay.

Dr. Mitten. Yeah, good. No, it's not Michael.

No, it's not Michael. It's 40 bucks over here. Who's keeping track?

Yeah, it's something physical. The outline is physical. 80 bucks so far.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, hey, look. Just because something's physical doesn't mean it can't be Michael. Okay?

She's up to about 100 bucks. Well, you don't get 40 bucks for a cup.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. She's up to 100.

[Speaker 1]
Wait, wait, wait. Yeah, that's easy. You're going for the whole 300.

Wow. Good. A person cannot...

Yeah. Yeah. You cannot see a person in Buddhism.

You cannot see a person. You cannot see Michael in Buddhism. You can see Michael's body.

You can see Michael's head. You can see Michael's air conditioning. But you can't see Michael.

Okay. Why? Because Khansa...

I'm giving you the day for free. Because people... Come on.

[Speaker 2]
Come on.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, somebody else is going to get the last 40. Yeah, okay. He'll get the last 40.

He'll get the last 40. Okay. A person, on the chart from DCI Level 7, right?

On the chart, there's changing things. Unchanging and unchanging things. Changing things, three types.

Physical, mental, and changing things which are not physical and mental. And Michael is in the middle one. Okay?

Michael's hair color is in the physical. And Michael's mind is in the mental part of Michael. But Michael is in the middle.

And he's not in the physical box. Therefore, Michael cannot be the shape of Michael, because that's physical box. Michael is middle box.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I have a body and mind.

[Speaker 1]
By the way, when you say I have a body and mind, that means I can't be in those two boxes. When you say Michael has a body and mind, you're saying Michael is not body and mind.

[Speaker 2]
Okay? Therefore, he has to be in another box.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah. Cool? Therefore, I cannot be the outline of Michael.

Someone came along and said, yeah, but there's something special about the configuration. You know, the shape. And when you study Chichedang, you will find that when you...

We have this exercise that we do with Level 7 students. We say, close your eyes and picture a car. And they close their eyes and picture a car.

And then we say, close your eyes and picture... I'm sorry. Picture a car that you're familiar with.

Like your car. And then it's blue. It's a little shiny.

You know, it's more detailed. Okay? So that's a difference.

Yeah, and then we say, look at the real thing. And eventually, they realize all three are the same. You know?

But that's a long... That's a big jump. Okay.

All right. Yay! Are we?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Cool. Yeah, congratulations on a good term.

Thank you. Yay! Did you get that last 300 straight?

Because it was kind of complicated.

[Speaker 2]
300?

[Speaker 1]
No, no, I'm not saying that. I think Gibson got 40. Stanley got 40.

Gibson got 40. And she got 100.

[Speaker 2]
220.

[Speaker 1]
I would say that. I'm just saying what he said. I would say that.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, can I do it from home tonight or something?

[Speaker 1]
Okay, yeah. Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Stopped here. 519, I think.

[Speaker 2]
They're all lined up.

[Speaker 1]
Stopped.

[Speaker 2]
You're not going to get a different one.

[Speaker 1]
Here. Stopped here. Oh, term 8 stopped here.

It's really helpful to see.