Медитации на пустоту: объяснение шагов к пониманию того, что ничто не является самим собой, занятие 51

[Speaker 2]
Satsang with Mooji of having done that. Well, you guys, you're already telling me, because then I get the karma of speaking it, so that's good. Yeah, we're taking it for you.

Does this mean it works? Is that it? OK.

OK, so let's try and figure it out. What's the first thing you have to do? You're confronted with a syllogism that says, oh, here are seven relationships that you're going to investigate to determine whether something has a self-nature.

So what's the first thing you do? I'm just wondering if anything is really old or old. Is it old?

Somewhere. If you want to establish that in order to establish things have to have self-nature, then you have to establish one by one. OK, that's the second step.

Before you do the one by one, then, what happens? Should it be that you establish that there are only seven options? Yes.

That if you were to go through these seven options, if something did not fit in these seven relationships, then there could not be a self-nature. You have to establish that there's a left side of the room and a right side of the room, and nothing else. And then, once you've established that, then you go through the seven, and you're looking, looking, looking to see, can you find a self-nature to the thing that you're using to examine?

And then, what's the result of having done that? So you find emptiness only after searching for and not finding self-existence. That's what Jainism is all about.

Yay. OK, so this was an easy quiz. There's only two questions.

So we're going right into Tibetan now. Those had three parts to use, so I thought it sort of came down to it. T-S-W?

Yeah. T-S-W. You could get an A for that.

Yeah, right. Nye nyu pa yin. That's we can do a thing?

Boo. Remember what it is that we're concerning ourselves with in this text right now, right? We're using logic.

So how would this phrase? Nope. Nope.

Well, specifically, what Geshe-la said is that you're able to perceive.

[Speaker 1]
OK.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, but it's not able to ascertain anything.

[Speaker 1]
It's almost like work out. Able to work it out.

[Speaker 2]
You got to hit this one. Whoa.

[Speaker 1]
That was quick.

[Speaker 2]
He's nearly. Nearly. No longer.

And this one is able to work separately. Can someone give me one?

[Speaker 1]
This is the one I.

[Speaker 2]
Greatly naked. What? Naked.

Naked.

[Speaker 1]
Totally naked. I like it. You ever seen a naked butt?

I was trying to explain it to Bea, and she's like, I don't like that one.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you very much. Yay. Thank you.

What is it? It's a metaphor of searching for something. OK, cool.

[Speaker 1]
Let me see. Oh, it's too nice. Oh, that's a nice one, yeah.

I must have done somebody wrong. I hate this keyboard. What's a keyboard?

How do you plan a new keyboard?

[Speaker 2]
OK, go.

[Speaker 1]
Here we go. Fasten your seat belt.

[Speaker 2]
SUG SOGS KYIS RANG PO'I ZHIG PA'I NGA LA SUG SOGS NANG BA NA RANG GI RTZEN NYID KYI GRUB PAR NANG BA MA TOG NANG SU ZHEN NYID RIM BYUNG NI DIG BAS Nice.

[Speaker 1]
Nice pronunciation. God bless you. All right.

SUG SOGS.

[Speaker 2]
Form and stuff. Visible form and stuff.

[Speaker 1]
But I'll tell you something. It's almost equal to ZHIG CHA. you see, just so you know, when they say physical matter etc, it's almost a synonym for YOD PA, you see what I mean?

So, treat it that way, it's meant to say everything that we use, okay? Alright, RANG BZHIN GYIS STONG, empty of any nature of their own, okay, young, but R WANG PO YI ZHES PA NA, yeah, our five sense consciousnesses are LAS PA, this is a hard word, infected or polluted or something, messed up, skewed, by not understanding, okay, so when colors and shapes etc appear to those senses, by the way, this suk is almost like the objects of the five sense powers, so you're gonna have to translate it slightly differently than the suk-suk you started with. When you start a sentence with suk-suk, it's almost like all the stuff in the world, but he just limited it to the five consciousnesses based on your physical organs, so you might wanna, it's possible you could even translate the second suk-suk differently from the first suk-suk, meaning visible things etc now, the second suk-suk means visible things etc, the first suk-suk meant, you know, matter etc, okay, okay, when they appear to you, by the way, is this the NANG BA where it appears to you from the object side, or is this the NANG BA where the mind takes on a certain aspect? I would say that, I would say that, yeah, you know, the way stuff appears to you is as if they RANG GI TSE NAS KYI GDUG PA, yeah, now MA STOG, when used as with a negative following it, means, means specifically that way and only that way, that way and never any other way, okay, so this MA STOG doesn't mean but-for, it means, it only, it only, things only appear that way and never any other way, okay, it's almost like but-for that way, there's no other way they appear, but it's meant to be very strong, so this, the STOG is a little, this, you're gonna have to, STOG will trip you up the first four or five years, because we had it as GDUG PA STOG, GDUG KHAMS STOG, included into the desire realm, now we have it as just a kind of an adverb, you know, except for this way of appearing to you, it never appears any other way, okay, got it? And it's very common in modern Tibetan, so if you want to learn to speak Tibetan, MA STOG is a very, very useful expression to use. KHO KHUG PO MA STOG, KHO HA KHO BA'I YOD LAS No, if he hadn't have been a fool, he might have understood, but for the fact that he's an idiot, he could have understood, or something like that, I don't know why he came up with that example, okay.

NANG SOS GZHANGS MIN SBYUNG, yeah, they never appear any other way, okay, they only appear as if they were coming from their own side, and he's talking red, round, you know, loud noise, soft noise, smell good, smell bad, and he's talking about taste, taste, taste, salty, taste, you know, all of them, when you have those experiences, they are infected LES PA, with the belief that they're coming from their own side.

So, especially in the highest school of Buddhism, Prasangika, middle way, they believe that the infection, by believing that things come from their own side, got into your sense organs, you know, if they cut off your brain, your eyeballs would still make the mistake, okay, it's very... no, and when you read Vasubandhu on the Wheel of Life, he talks about it for 50 pages or something, you know, in the Wheel of Life teaching, there are no neutral links in the sense of misunderstanding, they're all infected. The empty houses are infected, the contact with the outside world is infected, the feeling about the outside world is infected, they're all infected.

When we teach that thing about physics, what, a better history of time? When I teach a better history of time, I like to talk about the Wheel of Life thing, that because of where they came from, your eyeball is infected, your ears are infected, and that's a higher school thing, you know, you would think that, look, if I'm just looking at this green eyeglass cover, Geshe-la I'm not making bad karma, well you are, because you are misunderstanding it, just your eye is misunderstanding it, before you think about it, your eye is misunderstanding it, so it's really bad, things are really bad, and what he says here is, it never appears to you any other way, ever, in your whole life, okay? Did he say? Okay, okay, so the point is, in the highest schools, the infected, the infection which is obviously in your mind, has spread to your physical organs, it's in your ears, on your tongue, okay?

Like that. Okay, keep going. Oh, here he says it, so, thank you.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, he's still on Chittagong?

[Speaker 1]
Okay, cool. By the way, she did it perfect, which is unusual for anybody, I'm not saying you. The prenasal for a B is M, but if it ends in a B and it's heading into an N, it goes to M again for some reason, kamdir.

If you want to sound really good to a Tibetan monk, say kamdir. You don't say kap-ndir, it mostly sounds like kamdir, okay? And it sounds like you're from Hasa.

I was in the hospital, and I had an operation, and when I woke up, this lady was standing there, and in a white smock, you know, and she said, I'm your doctor, I'm your floor doctor, you know, I'll be taking care of you this week as you recover. And I said, nice to meet you, and I said, what's your name? And she says, Tsering.

My name is Tsering. Long life. And I said, are you Tibetan?

And she says, yes. And I'm like, you're a Tibetan doctor named Long Life, come to take care of me just after my operation, am I right? And she says, yes.

I never met her before, you know, and then I felt like an angel came, you know? And we started talking in Tibetan for two hours, and then at the end she says, you have a perfect accent. Your accent is Lhasa, my accent is kam-ndir, you know, your mother was Tibetan.

But what I'm saying is, what you're learning is the best accent of Tibetan, the standard, standard, standard, okay? Just by accident, my teachers were all from Lhasa. So, kam-ndir, got it?

Then you can impress your doctor at the hospital. Oh, kam-ndir. She wants to come and see the...

she wants her children to see people respecting their culture. So, we got to remember to invite her, okay? Yeah, no.

I said, how many Tibetans in 2006-2002? I'm like, there's half... how many people in 2006-2002?

Half a million people? Yeah, I'm like, out of 500,000 people, I meet you. Okay, I understand.

Rangchak Sokhe, yeah, kam-ndir. Here in the Prasangika explanation, right? In the context of the Prasangika, Rangchak, us guys, Sokhe, he's being modest, humble.

If he were an Arya, he might still say Sokhe Rangchak. You and me, who haven't seen emptiness yet, is what it says, okay? Guys like you and me, who haven't seen emptiness yet.

To our senses, she-ngur, to our senses, sung-dra sok, things like visible things, hearable things, and when it's with dra, you must translate it as visible thing, okay? As opposed to physical thing. Nangwa ni-yur-mu.

What's the mu? Yeah, now, everybody knows that, and it's not wrong to say, even in the Prasangika context, that stuff is appearing to you. Red, blue, square, round, things are appearing to you.

But, yur-mu, there's no problem with that. But, you should understand that, nang-tsul tar dru-pa, the blue, or the white, or the sweet sound, V loved the piano song by the way, by the Japanese guy, and then we checked all his other songs and they weren't the same, okay? Nang-tsul tar dru-pa means, what percent of that blue color, or round shape, really exists the way it appears?

What percent exists the way it appears? Zero, yeah. So, he says, nang-tsul tar dru-pa, for something to exist the way it appears, is the gaccha.

That's the gaccha, okay? Something that could appear to normal people the way it really is, is wrong. No such thing.

Now, he does something very interesting here, he didn't say gaccha. No, he didn't say just gaccha. Yeah, dig-a-rang, no, by the way, yeah, tak-gi gaccha, rig-pe gaccha, as opposed to, nam-gi gaccha, okay?

There's two kind of gacchas. You all heard the word gaccha. You all know that gaccha means, what is emptiness is empty off.

But, there's two kinds of gacchas, if you want to go deeper. There's two kind of gacchas. One is the one we proved doesn't exist, and that's the husband who, I didn't do anything husband, it's called logical gaccha.

But then there's the lam-gi gaccha, what do you seek to cancel through your personal spiritual practice? What do you seek to cancel through your personal spiritual practice? It's also called gaccha, and that's misunderstanding, and that does exist, okay?

So, that one's not what emptiness is empty of anymore. That gaccha means something you want to stop. Got it?

So, don't automatically translate gaccha as the thing that emptiness is empty of. See if it's referring to lam-gi gaccha. He wanted us to know it didn't refer to the lam-gi gaccha.

I'm not talking about the one that exists, which is your ignorance. I'm talking about when the husband, the husband, I didn't do anything husband, that, that could not exist the way it appears, okay? In this...

Oh, say di-ga-rang. Di-ga-rang, you know. That in itself is the gaccha.

Di-ga-rang. Yeah, you gotta say it all together. It's a very colloquial.

That's the one! It's di-ga-rang. That's the one.

You want a gaccha? That's the one. What?

The way the cup appears to you. Whoa! Or a cup that could be the way it appears to you.

Di-ga-rang. You want a gaccha? That's a gaccha.

Di-ga-rang. Di-ga-rang means this itself. Di-ga-rang is the gaccha.

You guys want a gaccha? It's the last cup of coffee you had. Whoa!

Okay. YIN ZHES ZHES PAR is the, is the position taken by the Prasangikas. Now...yeah, now you can translate it as apparently, which means you're not quite sure, but of course he's sure. So, we can see. You can translate it as we can see. Yeah, or obviously, yeah.

We can see that this is the position of the...okay? Yeah, be careful translating it as I think, or it appears to be...yeah. Yeah, apparent is perfect. Apparent is perfect. To call it apparent is perfect.

That's...yeah, it's an unapparent apparent. The apparence of the...anyway. Apparent is a perfect translation. Okay, here we go.

Okay, very forced and artificial sentence. Okay. I'm gonna get that chuk-du-do on there somewhere.

Okay. And it feels like he crammed it into a square peg into a round hole or something. Di-gokpe-tse.

And when we gok that gaccha...yeah, and when we deny that thing to be denied, which now we're talking about the husband, I didn't do anything to the husband, okay? Bönpá-la-tsön, what's that tson mean? And in words text we had tson nun yesterday for $20.

Good, yeah. Which is the usage of tson in another person's famous book. Damn!

$20 champagne. Where is champagne? Yeah, who else?

Bönpá-la-tsön nun. So, here it means...yeah, good, good, yeah. If we wanted to take the example of a water cup or a coffee cup, tson nun, dey che chen.

Let's take that Bönpá, okay? So, the dey is Bönpá, which is useful to know. So-so-ke-wee-she-ngo-la.

Yeah, to the perceptions, to the perceptions of a normal person, non-arya. By the way, don't use non-arya in your translation, that's not a translation. Yeah, that's a mongrel, that's half English, half Sanskrit.

Okay, if you want to lose a reader, put non-arya. If you don't like readers, put non-arya. And you don't want to sell our books.

Okay, she-ngo-la. I'd say someone who has...you know if it's me, I would say someone who hasn't seen emptiness directly. Sometimes you got to use a clause, okay?

You can definitely say that. Yeah, I'm sorry, you could say that, yeah. Or normal people.

Well, that's why you got to have a big footnote before that. I think after you've footnoted it, it's okay to use normal people for so-so-ke-wee. So, the first time you have to footnote it.

Then you can use normal people. But if the flow of the sentence is better, if the person will understand the sentence better, you do have carte blanche. You're the translator, you know.

If you feel it would flow better, then you can say someone who hasn't seen emptiness directly yet, but make sure you're in the right school, because like Abhidharma people don't say emptiness. Okay, all right, so-she-ngo-na-wa-tar-ma-drup. Good, it doesn't exist the way it appears.

Why? Because it's not one that exists the way it appears, and it's not more than one that exists the way it appears. So, he wanted to get one and many in there, and he did, but the sentence is totally artificial, okay?

Hey, take this coffee cup, Gibson, it doesn't really exist. Why? Well, because it's not a single self-existing coffee cup, and it's not more than one self-existing coffee cup.

Get it? Okay, got it? No.

Na-wa-tar. It doesn't exist as one thing which exists as it appears, and it doesn't exist as more than one thing, which is here separate, right? He doesn't say du-ma.

Separate things, you can say separate things. It doesn't exist. And be careful that the ma doesn't get read with the drup, and the ma gets read with the drup.

Okay, all right, there's the drup. Oh no, I'm sorry, it is ma-drup. Yeah, sorry.

It's not du-ma-drup. It's kang-rung-tu-kama-ma-drup. Okay, all right, here we go.

The guy says kama-ma-drup, which means, okay, you ready? He says kama-ma-drup, understood answer. He says, just because the coffee cup isn't one thing that exists from its own side, and it's not many things which exist from their own side, doesn't mean it doesn't exist from its own side.

Yeah, yeah, okay. Just because it's one thing that doesn't exist from its own side, and it's not many things that exist from their own side, you can't say it doesn't exist from its own side. Implying there's another choice between one and more than one.

Okay, khyap-te.

[Speaker 2]
Khyapa-ngar-tar-drup. Was he paying attention when I explained this earlier?

[Speaker 1]
I'm sorry, I'm going to cut this off. Okay, it should be cut off here. Khyapa-ngar-tar-drup.

Yeah, if it's not a single thing that comes from its own side, and it's not more than a single thing that comes from its own side, it does soon not come from its own side. Because we already proved that back when... Okay, ngar-tar.

Or you could translate this as, is to be proved in the way we did it before. This is future tense, yeah. Okay, go ahead.

[Speaker 2]
Khyapa-ngar-tar-drup. Say again? Where?

Khyapa-ngar-tar-drup.

[Speaker 1]
No, this is not what I'm explaining. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, unfortunately.

Cik-tu-ma-drup. Yeah. Okay, dey-chu-chen.

What is the example? Coffee cup, boomba. Ngar-war-tar-cik-tu-ma-drup-dey.

It doesn't exist as a single thing that is the way it seems. Okay? Because...

This is a tough, tough phrase, and it's extremely important. Okay? So, dak-shi means the two parts of the pen.

The top of the pen and the bottom of the pen. The thing you're going to give the name is called dak-shi. Okay, the parts before they get the picture.

The parts before they get the picture is called dak-shi. What's going to get the name, and name in Prasangika means a mental picture coming out of your karmic seeds. Okay?

If you say it that way, you just said a sentence better than any Buddhist translation ever done into English. Okay? Really.

No one understands it. Okay? It's not about naming things.

That's not the point. The point is, it's picturing things. It's laying pictures on things.

And the big point is dependent origination. Those pictures are coming from how you treated people last week. Got it?

And if you don't say it that way, then everything is... the book is almost useless. Okay?

All right, here we go. Dey-chi-chen, ngar-war-tar-cik-tu-ma-drup-dey. It doesn't exist as a single thing in the way it appears to because it's just an entity.

Okay? Existing thing which has been created through the process of a picture being put on the parts. And you got three forms of verb dak, dok here.

The present tense is dokpa, right? Dak is a future tense, to be labeled, which is the parts of the pen. The stuff to be...

the stuff which is going to gracefully receive your picture when you send it, but you haven't sent it yet. Okay? So the dak-chi, future tense, to be labeled, has been labeled, and is now a labeled thing, meaning a finished product, a pen.

Okay, got it?

[Speaker 2]
Okay, so the dakpa is the finished product.

[Speaker 1]
Which has been labeled. And now it's a labeled thing. Dak-chu.

Okay? So, dak-chu is the result of the labeling process when you apply a picture from your karmic seed to the parts. The parts are called the thing we're going to put the picture on, which is called dak-chi.

And then the verb of sending the picture to the parts is called batakspa. Okay? Alright?

Which has been labeled. We call it labeling, but it's really the picture is put on the parts. The dog has a different picture.

They label the same dak-chi. Okay? The dak-chi is the same.

What's the same? The parts are the same. Top of a cylinder and bottom of a cylinder.

The parts are the same, but the dog has a different dok-che seed, a labeler. Okay? So, he docks it differently.

He has docked it differently, and so he comes up with a different dak-chu labeled thing, which is now a... chew toy. Got it?

So, the dak-chu for a dog is a chew toy. Right? The dak-chi for a dog is the same as the dak-chi for a human.

The stuff being labeled. Okay?

[Speaker 2]
The part? Mm-hmm.

[Speaker 1]
No, I would say that. No, they are black or white cylindrical objects. It's just colors and shapes.

Yeah, if they can't perceive colors, then yeah, it's different. If it's a red pen and they can't perceive colors, it's different. I agree.

But I mean in general, it's very cool to say it's the same... it's the same stuff with a different picture. Okay?

Because that really gets into the feeling of it's coming from you, especially your problems. Your chew toys. There could have been pens.

Okay? Alright. Now, that's a call by the translator.

That's a call by the translator. Do you mention the word karmic seed here? Or do you mention the word picture?

I probably would not. You know?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
I don't think it's his main point about the karmic seed. Yeah. So, I think it might be putting words in his mouth.

And we have to be careful not to do that also. It's a balance. It's a balance.

But put enough information that your audience will learn something. Okay, khyab te. So, somewhere there he said ma khyab.

Anybody want to try khyabpa lung? I like to call it, and personally when I translate, I like to say, if something is the result of the labeling process, then... Now, nama tar cik tu madrup.

[Speaker 2]
Just because something is a labeled thing that came into being through being labeled doesn't mean that it doesn't appear the way it is?

[Speaker 1]
Good. Yeah. That it doesn't not appear the way it is.

Or something like that. That doesn't... Anyway.

Just because something is produced by mental pictures, doesn't mean it can't be one entity which appears the way it exists. Okay? Which appears the way it does.

Which exists the way it appears. Okay, here we go. Khyab te.

Take your time. I will drink this delicious coffee. Where is this coffee from?

[Speaker 2]
Khyab te. So kye kshen ngor pung sok rang gi dak chik. La dakpe dak chuk sang du du mi nangwar dak chik hang.

Dak chuk ni mi chekpe su gi rang ngu ne drupar nangway chik.

[Speaker 1]
This is kind of radical. And I'm not sure I would even say it this way, but it sure gets you thinking. It's going to sure get you thinking.

Okay, here we go. Khyab te. So kye kshen ngor.

To the perceptions... And I think we do say that in English. To the perceptions of a person who hasn't seen emptiness directly yet.

Okay? Things like... Coffee cups.

Coffee cups. And please don't say coffee cups, etc. Etc.

is rarely used in English. And sok is used constantly in Tibetan. So don't over-etc.

your audience. You can use a few, but don't use it every time you see sok. Okay?

You can say stuff like... Things like... Things like coffee cups.

They do not appear, mi nangwar, as if they were just a dak chuk. A result of the labeling process. Okay?

They do not appear that way. Okay? When you look at the parts, dak shi, the thing to receive the name, or the thing to receive the pictures, right?

They don't appear as if they are what you are labeling. It doesn't appear that way. But...

But... What does appear to you... This is now, here comes a radical statement.

What a... Sorry again?

[Speaker 2]
Where's the but?

[Speaker 1]
The er. Without appearing. It's a but.

Okay? Rather than appearing that way, the way they do appear is as though the dak shi... Listen.

It's as though the dak shi and the dak chuk were the same thing. It's as if the thing that got the name, before it got the name, and the thing that was created after the name was applied, or the picture, were the same thing. And that's ignorance.

Okay? It always appears to you as though the parts were making the pen rather than the picture was making the parts to the pen. Okay?

I'll say it again. It always appears to you as though the parts made the pen. And it never appears to you as though your karma seeds are opening and making the parts into a pen.

Okay? Got it? It's cool.

In Tibetan it's very poetic. dak shi, dak... dak shi, dak chuk nyi, mi che, mi che pe tsu It appears as though they were indivisible.

Okay? It appears as though they were married to each other. Okay?

Oh my God, you're giving talk to me. Maybe, yeah. Maybe not, yeah.

Yeah, yeah. Which is to say... Okay?

When you say they appear as if they were married, that is to say as well that they are appearing rang un ne. From their own side. From their own side.

He just... He said some radical stuff here. He said the thing before it got the picture appears as though it were the thing after it got the picture.

And when a thing before it got the picture appears the same to you as the thing after it got the picture, then you, I can accuse you of thinking that things come from their own side. He's tied them together. You know.

We often say in Diamond Mountain, you have ignorance. Why? You think the husband's coming from his own side.

But he just equated coming from its own side with the raw data being the pen and the raw data being the pen after your karma seed makes it the pen. It's equal to thinking it comes from its own side. That's very cool.

That sentence is awesome. You know. That sentence is a book in itself.

You know. Yeah. Cool?

Alright. Tell Wong. Yeah, no.

This is tough. All the separate workings of things, if you're correct, if the thing being a pen before you name it a pen were true, then all the workings of things, all the separate functioning of all objects would be one. All objects would work the same way.

A car would fly. Okay. Oh, no.

This pen means telwa pen. The absurd consequence would be put forth. This pen means the absurd consequence would be implied.

No, there's another word. It means would be thrown forth. It would incur.

You would incur the absurd consequence that, you know, cars could fly and planes could, you know, go to car races. I guess they could. Yeah, now, you know, you can either lazily translate it and go on, which is what I'm going to do, or you're going to explore why specifically the functioning of things would be all glued together if things came from their own side because the thing before it got the name was exactly the same as the thing after the name.

Someone could write an essay about that. Well, what's that got to do with it? Then all things would be, would work the same way.

You got to chew on that one. That's worth a meditation. It's possible.

It's possible. No, no, but it feels much more universal. But it is true that the side of the pen would write as well as the tip of the pen if that were the case.

Actions and doers. Yeah, things done and people doing. BYA BA DANG PHYIR PA PO is the full form.

I like to translate it as the working of things. Yeah, yeah. No, he doesn't say that.

Yeah, he could say that. He would say BYA BA DANG PHYIR PA PO NYID TSUNG or something like that. So, when he says BYA PHYIR, he specifically wants to say the working of all things.

He doesn't want you to split it. It's an idiom, you know. The working, the way things work.

You know, okay.

[Speaker 2]
I don't like that objection when he says when you could turn the water into toilet.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Oh, that's your problem. That's your problem.

Yeah, yeah. Okay. Go ahead.

[Speaker 2]
BUM SOGS KYI SPYOD DANG PHYIR KYANG RANG RANG GI BDAG GYIS MING DU MING DREG ZHAG SANG MING DREG MING DREG ZHAG SANG What was the BDAG DGANG MA? What did he say? What's the day?

[Speaker 1]
He says the previous proof, the previous syllogism. Yeah. I think he wants us to go back to the ...

No, not way back. He wants us to go back to the BDAG PA'I BDAG CHUD TZAM YIN PA'I PHYIR Okay? He wants us to go back three lines.

Okay? He wants us to go back to the first thing on the screen here. I think.

You see? How many times has he said PHYIR in the last three lines? No?

Two?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
He says PHYIR in the first one. He says PHYIR in the second one. He doesn't say PHYIR in the third one.

So, when he says the previous PHYIR, I believe he's talking about these first two lines here. The first two ... Yeah, exactly.

He wants you to skip one BDAG back. One syllogism back. In my opinion.

Okay? BDAG SNGA MA DER THAL Yeah, that's telling me about it. Because he's heavy on the BDAG BZHIN, the BDAG CHUD, and you know, I think he's going back there.

Okay? He uses the same language exactly. Okay?

So, I think we can safely go back there. BDAG SNGA MA DER THAL The former proof is ... is correct?

Is correct? The former proof is correct? What was the former proof if you want to know?

Take the coffee cup. It does not exist as a single thing which appears ... which exists the way it appears.

Because ... Yeah, it's just a labeled thing created to the process of putting a label on the parts to be labeled. Okay?

Then we say, I don't agree. He says I don't agree. And then we say it is so because ...

Now, here we go. BUM SO. Did you read it already?

Okay. Because things like coffee cups and every other thing in the universe, which is ... to me sometimes a very highly desirable translation of PHYIR THAMS CAD, all stuff.

RANG RANG GI BDAG ZHIG BSTAN DU They are MING DE ZHAG TSAM. They are merely labeled with names and terms on their parts which are meant to receive the label, which are destined to receive a label, BDAG ZHIG. Okay?

The parts which are destined to receive a label are labeled, and that's how they exist. Okay? That's how they come to exist.

Now, the only question, and you're familiar with the question, is what's the difference between name and term? Anybody want to go? Yeah, the word and the picture.

Which is RANG TSAN PA? We're going to have it, somebody. Which one takes priority?

The DA. Yeah, this is instrumental, take off the S. Yeah, the DA.

The DA is the important one. Names can, you know, you can call a rose by another name. We're talking about the result of buying perfume for your wife.

The smell of the rose, got it? Okay? Okay.

Right? Okay. Right Vimala?

Buying perfume. Yeah. Causes a rose to smell good, right?

That's why roses smell good. Okay. Something like that.

Or you made good smelling mooncakes for people. Alright. Okay.

By the way, I mean, that's one of my favorite, MING DE ZHAG BSAM is totally the most common expression in Prasangika. Exists only through names and terms. But term here means mental picture coming out of a karmic seed.

Okay? And you got to know that. You got to keep harping on that.

To your students, okay? Or they will never understand this point. That you have to tie emptiness to dependent origination.

You have to tie emptiness to morality. Okay? To being good to other people.

To compassion, right? If you don't, you don't understand emptiness. Okay.

Alright, here we go. DER THAL?

[Speaker 2]
Yes, he comes in and says like ...

[Speaker 1]
Right?

[Speaker 2]
He said, DER THAL? Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, this is a tough sentence. That is so the case. What is so the case?

That things are just collections of parts that have been established through names and terms. Okay? That is so the case, because everything in the universe, DAG ZHI RANG DOG MIN PA, is not the collection of parts in and of itself.

I would say RANG DOG here, I wouldn't try to make it some sutras, you know, manifestation of the archetype. I wouldn't go there. The opposite of all, it's not.

I wouldn't go there for RANG DOG here. It just means in and of itself. Okay?

All the things in the universe are not things that exist in and of themselves. Rather, they exist in relationship to other things, meaning dependent. From DTENG NAS, DTENG NAS means from other things.

Literally from on top of other things. But in this construction, DTENG NAS means on the basis of. Okay?

On the basis of. So, don't translate DTENG NAS as, you know, top of the table or something. It's an adverb.

It's like OK TU, means later on in the book. It doesn't mean below. Okay?

It's the same as OK TU. You know? DTENG TU, on the basis of.

Okay? Yeah. Yeah.

On other things. Things are always established relative to other things, and it's not the case that everything in the universe is the thing before it got the name. Is the collection of parts before it got the name.

Although that's what ignorance thinks. Okay? Because the ignorance, the thing after it got the name, and the thing before it got the name seem to be identical.

And that was his big breakthrough statement. Okay? Oh.

Well, to be continued. Yeah, thank you. What's kind of happening with everybody's text is the authors are settling down into the correct view, which is a lot easier to translate.

It's not like, oh great, Gyaltsabje. I hope Gyaltsabje is finished with all his problems. Yeah, let's see.

V's like, this guy, Gyaltsabje, every time you work on him you get irritated. Not irritated, you get agitated. I'm like, yeah.

She can tell which author I'm working on. Are you doing Gyaltsabje? Yeah, how'd you know?

You look agitated. She doesn't know what's Gyaltsabje anymore. Maybe.

MA BYAS PA SHOK YIDAM GURU HADNAMAN DANG LA GANGS RGYAS YATSAR YANG NI DI'I KHYEN WONG KUN TSAN RANG YIN SHES TSOR RDZOGS SHING TSAN RANG YIN SHES RIGS BYUNG RIGS THAMS PA KUN YID THOB PA SHOK Shonishmoni. Yay, Shonishmoni. We have a proposal to cut the C off his name.

Honey Lama. He's Choney Lama, right? Now we decide, at home I call him Honey Lama.