Медитации на пустоту: объяснение шагов к пониманию того, что ничто не является самим собой, занятие 52

[Speaker 1]
Alex, don't leave the term without two Chinese rock and roll songs. Then Ben can practice them until June. They have to be real rock and roll, okay?

But Chinese. And preferably Taiwanese. Preferably Taiwanese.

We can try them out in Singapore.

[Speaker 2]
They're not allowed.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, kill him, kill him.

[Speaker 2]
OK, so remember, we're in this text about Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche's life about the meditations you have to do on emptiness so that you can get out of the cycle of suffering. And we have gone through the lower schools, and we're now in the section of the Consequence Group in the middle way of school. We're in the cool stuff.

And he's been spending a lot of time on Chittagrel, the logic of one or many, to prove the lack of self-nature to people. And now we're into the lack of self-nature to things, and Chittagrel again applies. So he said, you know, I already talked about Chittagrel earlier, so you know about this, but let me give you some more details about Chittagrel.

And we're getting into some really cool stuff about Chittagrel. Can you define that again? In English, one or many?

One is one. Or is it actually, which I think, is it one or several? One or several.

[Speaker 1]
Hmm. That's a nice thought. That is a difficulty.

You guys are getting very sophisticated.

[Speaker 2]
So, I know that you mean like word and sentence. Generally speaking, what is the thing to be denied, and then what are the two specific kinds of that thing? And we're going to do English and Tibetan, English first.

I'm going to answer the question. There's the things that are denied by the path, and then there's data. Let's just go slowly, general, English, and then Tibetan, and then the specific ones.

[Speaker 1]
Slow down there, general.

[Speaker 2]
There's the two specific kinds of things that you can deny. And then the things that you get rid of that are blocking you from seeing. So what empties is emptying out.

And then we have two specific conchas. Oh, I see. I didn't see how you phrased it.

You get rid of the idea that things have their own nature. You get rid of the idea. So these are types.

So not specifically one. Okay. So there's the kind of thing that is the thing that's blocking you from.

The things you deny by. Oh, logic? Yes.

The things you deny by logic. Analysis in what's the Tibetan term? He says rik-kee-gak-ja.

He says ta-kee-gak-ja.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, ta-kee-gak-ja.

[Speaker 2]
Rikkegakja. Traditionally, yeah, that's what I'm saying.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, okay, yeah, you're right.

[Speaker 2]
Does the text say ta-kee-gak-ja?

[Speaker 1]
Rikkegakja. Yeah, it is. I take it that way.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, cool. So as Anatole said, it's the thing that you stop in the path. And what's the Tibetan for that?

Lam-kee-gak-ja. Lam-kee-gak-ja. It is interesting.

I'm not sure why. I don't exactly know what you're saying. Yeah, uh-huh, yeah.

Okay. Okay, so I think he gets into using the same, when he's in Chittagong, in their analysis form already, to go a little bit deeper. And he starts talking about how it is that things appear to us, how it is we experience.

And he went through three parts of one of these things. And let's do English and Tibetan. So number one, English, and then it's Tibetan, number two, English, and it's Tibetan, number three, English, and it's Tibetan.

First part. A little bit more than just parts. A little bit more detail than just parts.

Shapes and colors. A little more detail than just parts, I believe. An object before its name.

And what's the Tibetan for? Gak-chu? Oh, very good.

[Speaker 1]
Gak-chu.

[Speaker 2]
Technically that can't be an existing thing. The label. Nope.

The labeling. The process of applying the label. And what's that in Tibetan?

[Speaker 1]
Tok.

[Speaker 2]
Tok in the book. Tok, tok, tok. And then what's the third thing?

The label. USDA grade A choice. And what's that in Tibetan?

Tok. Tok-chu.

[Speaker 1]
Very good.

[Speaker 2]
So following on that whole labeling thing, he was just setting us up for giving us the first of two zingers. I didn't put both zingers in the quiz. So the first of two zingers in our last class.

Zinger, what's a zinger?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, a zinger.

[Speaker 2]
Something that makes you go, whoa, who's thinking that? Whoa, surprise. It's a zinger.

[Speaker 1]
It's like an electric shock.

[Speaker 2]
I don't remember which of the two the one I'm thinking of is. Well, it's kind of very closely related to this process we just talked about. Okay, in that case it's thinking that the labeled thing and the thing that you label are the same thing.

The thing before it gets labeled and the labeled thing is up here to us. And now the Tibetan thing. And now the Tibetan thing.

It's going to be some longer mess. But that's certainly part of it. That's the last result.

So remember we went through them. We named them earlier. Daxi.

Daxi. Yeah. Tang.

Tang. Daxi. Daxi.

Daxi. Daxi. Daxi.

Daxi. And then there's one more word. Liqe.

Liqe. Liqe. Liqe.

Liqe. Liqe. Liqe.

Liqe. Liqe. The thing before gets the label and the thing that's labeled both.

The thing before gets the label and the thing that's labeled both. Cool.

[Speaker 1]
Yay, quack, quack! So what does it mean?

[Speaker 2]
Well what it means is, those are two different dots. But if you were to see one of them, you'd think they were the same one, but there's really another one that looks just like it. Plus the right one has the left leg, and the left one has the right leg.

[Speaker 1]
No.

[Speaker 2]
No, they're the same one. They both have the right leg. Yeah, they both have the right leg.

But if you saw them from a certain angle, you'd think it's the right one.

[Speaker 1]
It looks like it.

[Speaker 2]
They must be brothers. They were separated by a very talented doctor. Holy moly.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, we stopped here. Just as a review, which is probably what Venerable Upala just did, but I... Just for, you know, just to go through it one more time, these are the important words to know in this process of the picture coming out of the mental seed onto the pieces and making a car, the pieces of car into a car.

So these are the traditional words that are helpful to know. And because they employ different tenses of the same verb, they're confusing. Okay?

So, this means, you can say, this is a collection of parts ready to receive a label. And in DCI language, we call it luminous image. Yeah, labels.

Label equals luminous image. This is coming out of a karmic seed. Okay?

Because you shared your pens in the past, you have a karmic seed that opens and a pen picture comes out to the pieces of the pen, the top and the bottom of the pen. And so that's the thing before the picture comes out. It's saying, send me a picture, send me a picture.

Okay? The pieces before they get organized into a whole, before they get their label. And be careful that in Middle Way philosophy, the picture is called a name.

And that's very misleading. It's not a name. Or you can say names are on a primitive level pictures.

[Speaker 2]
What's the name? It's called a term. Yeah, there you go.

[Speaker 1]
Mingde chaksam. Or, yeah, labeled with names and terms. Term is worse.

But you know, in DCI, if you're really teaching people to use these concepts in their everyday life, the fact that things are creations of names doesn't help them. That's some kind of mind-only thing, that you could have called it something else. You know, that doesn't really help them.

The point is pictures coming out of the mind. And the point is karmic seeds from which those pictures emerge. And to say everything exists in name only is not so helpful.

That's like saying you could have called it a pig, but it's a rose. And you know, that doesn't really help anybody. It's true, but it doesn't really help people.

It doesn't make them want to be a good person. Yeah, same thing, yeah. Okay, now, dok che is the state of mind applying that label, which equals...

which sends out the picture, the image, to the parts. Yeah, and useful colloquial is... Useful colloquial term in the study of this verb and this concept.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, man.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I should have bet money. Let me make sure how to spell it. Yeah, that's correct.

Yeah, ming dok means equals nickname. Nickname in modern Tibetan. And it means name just stuck on to somebody.

Okay, so the dok means stuck on. And what's dok che? The result of the labeling process.

An existing thing. Okay. And so dok is okie-dokie present tense.

And dok is future tense. To be labeled. Right?

Labeling. State of mind, okay? And dok equals what, past tense?

Finished being labeled.

[Speaker 2]
You said, and I never fully wrap my head around it, but are there like some kind of like vague rules about the way that tenses work with verbs?

[Speaker 1]
There are some guidelines, but they're not that helpful. And as Tibetan language evolved, people got lazy and stopped using the tenses very much. So a lot of verbs only have one spelling.

Did do it, will do it, is doing it are all spelled the same. Like chepa. Well, no, that's not a good example.

But in Sanskrit, extremely strict about like 64 verb tenses. You cannot mess with it. And learning Sanskrit is simply an act of memorization.

We just memorized for five years. The teacher would say, memorize this page. And that was the homework.

And, you know, so anyway. And then you memorize and you forget it because you went on to the next one. Okay, anyway, there you go.

That might help.

[Speaker 2]
So I get the concept of what you're saying, but how to translate these two words?

[Speaker 1]
Which one?

[Speaker 2]
Ah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
All the things that exist in the universe, which is how I like to say it, can only be established relative to some other set collection of parts to receive a name which is not by itself an object yet, or something like that. Rang dok is difficult, but which is not by itself yet an object. The pieces of the car are dakshi rang dok.

Mimpa, okay? They're not a car. So when you're struggling with the expression dakshi rang dok mimpa, and that's a very strugglable expression.

And dakshi would be easy. You know, the collection of the parts down here, right? Dakshi.

That's all the parts of the car together, okay? So that's not so hard.

[Speaker 2]
But ...

[Speaker 1]
You can never have a sentence in this translation Mixed Nuts group that says, everything is not. You have to say, nothing is. That's English, that's just English.

Okay, so nothing in the universe is such that, you know, oh everything, well here it is everything. Everything in the universe can only ... No, I didn't get there yet.

Everything in the universe must be established by, on the basis of, a collection of parts which is not itself the thing yet. That's what rang dok mimpa means. Okay?

It's not the finished object itself yet. Rang dok mimpa. That's all, you know.

Is a thing, is the whole a collection of its parts? No. Not in Buddhism.

Until you think of it that way. And, or you can make a joke, you can be cute and say, that's the final part. And you can't think of it that way, unless you gave away pens before.

You won't be able to think of it that way. If you didn't give away pens before, you will think of it as a chew toy. Okay?

If you gave away gum, chewing gum before. Got it? So, it's not a big deal.

I mean, it takes like 20 years to figure it out, and then after you figure it out, it takes 20 seconds to say it. A thing is not all of its parts together, until a karmic seed opens in your mind and a picture comes out to glue it all together. And then it's a thing.

But if you don't have that karmic seed, you can stare at the parts of a pen forever, and you will never see a pen. And that's why we don't see tantric deities around us. Because we're not good enough.

We don't have the seeds. They're there? Or the parts are there?

But we don't have the picture. Cool? So, the Rangdong Minpa, by the way, is totally off the wall.

I never saw anybody say that. I, personally, if I was going to translate it, I'd say something like, which is not yet the finished object, or something like that. Yeah, not yet the thing itself.

Okay, I would say, yeah. It's a difficult sentence. It doesn't refer to the opposite of all that it's not, which is normally the meaning of do.

Okay, that's not the point. Or you can say it's not the archetype or something, but it doesn't really help the listener, the reader. It's better to say it's not what it is yet, because the picture hasn't been applied yet.

It's the parts laying on the floor. Well, in Buddhism it's more subtle. It's not just the parts of the car laying on the floor spread out.

It's all the parts glued together, and it's still not a car yet. Because the last part hasn't been applied yet, which is your karmic picture. And you can put all the parts of a car together, and a bug still won't see a car.

Okay, that's all. They don't have the picture, because they didn't give people rides. And boy, you know, if you teach it that way, all of the jentia, all of the scripture's jentia, they like tear off their shirt for you, and they say, look at me.

If you understand what I just said, you can read anything. You can understand anything. And most people never get there.

They're like confusing students with, you know, the whole is not the parts, and the students are like, well, what are you talking about? And they don't know what they're talking about. They're just repeating something, you know.

Okay? The whole is not the parts until the label comes out. Yeah.

Which is created by being nice to others. And you have to add that, or you don't know what you're talking about. Okay?

Alright, or it's not, it's just kind of insufficient information. It doesn't make sense, which is why it sounds mystical. We studied my, the first book I ever studied was a very bad translation of Vagampopa.

And boy, we were like, wow. You can't understand a single sentence and say, this must be, you know, this is God talking. It was just a bad translation.

Okay. Alright, here we go.

[Speaker 2]
...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, translated, first word, everything in the universe, which is how I like Chodam Jin nowadays. It's one choice, you don't have to use it, but you can say all existing things. Everything in the universe is TEN CUNG.

Yeah, it arises through dependence in the sense that it depends on other parts which together equal the thing to be labeled. Okay? It depends on other parts which together we call DAG ZHI.

The thing which is asking, he's asking, please give me a label. Could you please give me a picture? I want to be a thing.

Right now I'm just a bunch of parts grouped together. Please give me a label. Which means, please give me a picture.

Which means, please have been nice to someone last week, please. Okay, got it? And this recalls the brilliant treatment of dependence by Pabongka Rinpoche in his commentary to the Three Principal Paths for $50.

This should remind you of the brilliant treatment of dependent origination in ACI 1.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. If you confuse the way that dependence plays, if you confuse the way that emptiness plays and cause an effect...

[Speaker 1]
And by the way, that... You're too complicated. 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0.

Yay! Okay, I'll tell it to you and you can give it to me. Three kinds of dependence described by Pabongka Rinpoche.

[Speaker 2]
Depend upon its causes. What are they?

[Speaker 1]
Wait, what's the first one? Three interpretations by different schools of what dependence means. And give me a sentence that has the verb depends on in it.

[Speaker 2]
First, things depend on causes and conditions.

[Speaker 1]
Things depend on their causes and conditions. Then?

[Speaker 2]
Parts. Things depend on their parts.

[Speaker 1]
Things depend on their parts. Why, why is this superior to this?

[Speaker 2]
Because this covers on changing things.

[Speaker 1]
And what's the third one?

[Speaker 2]
Things depend on labels, upon a basis of labels.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, or things depend on their names or the picturing... Okay, good. By the way, that's the clearest I've ever seen it anywhere.

In thousands of books, that's the best. And it's just kind of a, you know, modest commentary on the Three Principal Paths. But I've never seen anyone say it that clearly.

That was a couple of centuries ago.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, here we go.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, so here he's... Which one of the three is he talking about? Well, he kind of mixes them, because cashe means parts, and dakshi means the thing to get the name, okay, or the picture.

He kind of mixes them. But I'd say it's three. Yeah, okay.

Daichichen. After all, we are in which section? Yeah, okay, go.

Okay, go. What?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, just a vocab question then. So, does the Svatantrika call it dakshi as well?

[Speaker 1]
No.

[Speaker 2]
They don't?

[Speaker 1]
No. Not normally.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, thank you.

[Speaker 1]
There may be some weirdo guy, like somebody I know.

[Speaker 2]
You know all weirdos.

[Speaker 1]
By the way, Heather said that she had never sat in a group of such talented people in her life, and I think she was sincere about it. And she's talented. I thought it was pretty cool.

[Speaker 2]
No one knows how to go around a room and talk to everyone else like you. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
I was impressed. Well, you are impressive, and you don't understand. You don't see how cool you are.

I see how cool you are, but I think you don't see how cool you are. Daichichen. Soke shengor.

To the perceptions, yeah, as it appears, tare. Yeah, as if they were separate things. What's separate things?

What are the separate things he's talking about? It doesn't exist the way it appears, that there are two separate things.

[Speaker 2]
The chache and the dakshi.

[Speaker 1]
What was the first one? Oh, the chache and the dakshi?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
How about the collection of chaches and the dakshi? No, because the collection of chaches is the dakshi.

[Speaker 2]
I think it's what she's saying.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, okay, good, good, good. You're right. Okay.

Which is number three and number, oh, I see number one and number three here. It looks like they're the same thing.

[Speaker 2]
And he said that, right?

[Speaker 1]
Okay, okay, got it. Arangadakshila tūne drupaya ca, because it exists in dependence upon this. And the day that Sugeng gets tūne drupa correct, we're going to have a party.

What is tūne drupa, Sugeng? It's almost a definition of dependent origination. Okay, tū drup, tū drup.

So take out the ne, take out the ne, here it is, spelled for you. So you're going to remember it now. Say tū drup.

It's the, it's the, it's the rough definition of dependent origination. Yeah, those things which occur in reliance. He just used a different word for dependent.

So tū drup is often given as the brief, brief, brief, brief, brief definition of tenjun, which is tenjun dewa jungwa. Okay, pratityasamutpada. Okay, tūne drupa.

[Speaker 2]
It's a definition that's shorter than the word.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, arangadakshila. Okay, good. Did we get it?

Oh, it is, it is a creation which comes about through reliance on the collection of parts which are to receive the picture, which are waiting to get a picture. Which are begging for a picture from you. Please be not, please give people rides so I can give you a Tesla.

Right, Stanley? The parts are talking to you. The parts of the car are talking to Stanley and saying, please give more people rides because I want to be a Tesla for you.

[Speaker 2]
I agree. Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
It's like someone is talking to you, you're like in India, and no one speaks English, and you just ask people, where can I get food? And they're like, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and you're dying to understand, but you can't. So, the parts of Stanley's Tesla are talking to him already.

Please, please give people rides so you can have a picture to turn us into a Tesla. Where's the Tesla? What do you mean?

[Speaker 2]
I don't know, it just said cheer.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, it's right here. That's all. This is the drip drip drip.

This is the drip drip drip. What did we just prove? Did that prove that we're human beings?

He's trying to prove his last statement, that dependent origination means that things are created through dependence on a collection of parts, waiting for a name, waiting for a picture. And then we say, I disagree, and he says, yes, it is true, because the problem is that people mistake the finished car, people mistake the parts together for the finished car. People mistake the parts together waiting for a picture to be a finished car.

People who don't know the scoop, which is called sukhi. We just went through it, but the finished, here, number three and number one are different. The finished Tesla, after it got its name.

By the way, this should come. Okay, good. Where are we?

Here? Yeah, things wouldn't have to depend on the collection of their parts waiting for a picture from a karmic seed if they existed the way they seem to, in the sense that the parts before they get the picture from the karmic seeds seem to be the parts after they got the picture from the karmic seed. And that's why it's useful to have a text like Adams, which allows you to sustain an idea in your mind for about 30 seconds.

Okay, all right. I'm not going to repeat it because I don't think I can. Okay, go.

Yeah, and you're going to wrestle with the nangwa because there's two flavors, right? One is how the cup appears, and one is the aspect that the mind takes when it looks at the cup. Which one is it here?

We've got to think about it. So, kye wangpo shepa la. Yeah, I believe he's kind of hitting on the point that your eye, your ear, your nose are corrupt.

They are already diseased. They have something in them that's not going to let them work right. The equipment is faulty from the factory.

Okay? The equipment is messed up from the factory. When you were born, they gave you telescopes with stars painted on the glass.

Okay? Alright, and then to learn to not see that, it's very difficult. Alright, so anyway.

By the way, they would say you were born with with slight creases on your eye which make you think that this white porcelain sink has hairs in it. That's how they say it in Madhyamika. You were born with little scratches on your eyeball that make you think your wife didn't clean the sink after she brushed her hair.

That's how they say it in Madhyamika. You see little hairs which are really lines in your eyeball. Okay?

So, the equipment is faulty. That's, I think he's hitting on this point. Soke Wambo, okay?

So, the sense consciousnesses, the ones which should be correct, you know, they're not, they don't have opinions. They're just supposed to see blue. Okay?

Like, it's easy to imagine that your opinion of things is wrong. But your perception of blue is wrong? It doesn't think.

It doesn't make decisions. It doesn't have opinions. Yes, but it has a wrong opinion of the universe.

The perception of this nice blue shirt or whatever it is. It is a nice blue shirt. I think Mungke is going to like it.

Shenyang.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Soke Wambo Shepala, sung dra sok nang tsu, the way... Yeah, just basic stuff. Colors, sounds, the way they appear to you, they don't exist that way.

And so here nangwa is to appear to the senses, right? It's not the aspect of the mind that's taking up. Why?

Because dengor, to the sense-awarenesses of a non-ayah, deceptive objects don't exist the way they appear. Okay? Which is kind of the definition of a...

Deceptive objects, yeah. It's not the way it looks. It's not the way it looks.

You know what I like in DC? I have this example nowadays where the... the wife walks in the bedroom, the husband's looking at his phone, and then he's got a stupid, big stupid smile on his face, and then when the wife comes in he hides the phone, and she says, what are you doing?

And he says, nothing. And then she gets suspicious. She gets jealous, which has happened to all of us.

I don't know if you have a partner. And maybe not so bad. But...

And then that night while he's asleep she gets up and checks his phone to see what's the girlfriend's name. And... because she has an image of the girlfriend in her...

in her mind. She already, you know, she's blonde, she's got big chest, you know. And then he...

she already has a picture of the girlfriend in her mind, which is what jealousy is all about. She already has a picture of the other woman in her mind. And then she wakes up, she sneaks over to his side of the bed, she sneaks his phone off the thing, she goes in the toilet so that...

because the thing lights up when you touch it nowadays. And... and she sees that he was ordering her a birthday present on Amazon.

And then what happens to the girlfriend picture? Yeah, it goes... and it just disappears.

And... that's the... amount of reality that things have to your sense organs.

The blue, the orange, the... the pink that you're seeing has that much reality. This is the blonde with the big chest.

Okay. It has that much reality. Okay.

Because you feel like it's coming this way. That's all. It is pink liquid.

That's not... fake. That's true.

But it feels so strongly as though it's coming this way. And not from making drinks for my Lama. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
So the two ways of translating Nang... like almost are right and wrong here.

[Speaker 1]
Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. That's a subtle statement.

Okay, we okay with that? Things don't exist the way they appear. Dare tell?

[Speaker 2]
Dare tell. RANG RGYUD PA'I LUGS LA SNANG BA LTAR GYUR PA'I KUN SROG YOD NYANG DAG KUN SROG YOD CI LUS DU GYUR Stop there.

[Speaker 1]
And this is a point we've had in other people's texts. And I'll do it for you because we don't have that much time. We waste it sometimes.

RANG RGYUD PA'I LUGS LA in this lower Malayamika, SNANG BA LTAR GYUR PA'I KUN SROG YOD there do exist deceptive objects which do exist the way they appear. Okay, they draw a distinction. You know, if you thought this was mango, what do you call it, guava juice?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
And it was guava juice, then that's called correct deceptive.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
And then if you thought it was guava juice but it turned out to be watermelon juice, that's called incorrect deceptive. Is it? Yeah.

We think it is, but we're not even so clear about everybody's texts so far to know. But I think it is. Yeah, RANG RGYUD PA'I LUGS LA SNANG BA LTAR GYUR PA'I KUN SROG YOD PA'I Therefore, they accept in this school the concept of a good deceptive, of a correct deceptive.

Okay. KYANG DBA DANG RGYUD How are you going to pronounce these two?

[Speaker 2]
KYANG KYANG RGYUD Okay, what's it say?

[Speaker 1]
It's easy, after the but. Good. Now use the verb MED PA.

In this school there doesn't exist, and then go backwards, an example of deceptive reality which exists the way it appears. Okay, no such thing as correct deceptive and incorrect deceptive. Okay.

Therefore, they don't even accept the idea, MISHE, the idea of a correct deceptive.

[Speaker 2]
So, do Shuny Lama and Gil Subjet have a problem?

[Speaker 1]
No.

[Speaker 2]
Isn't that just what you... I want to stay with my texts. I also want to see it in Texas.

[Speaker 1]
I'm waiting to see if it happens.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, extremely useful statement, because he sort of defines deception.

[Speaker 1]
He sort of defines deception, which is...

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
The way it appears is one way, and the way it really is, is a different thing. So, if you accept that that's the definition of deception, SEDDHA PRASANGIKA, to the lower middle way, then I don't see how you can talk about a correct deception. Okay?

Because there's supposed to be a discrepancy. And that's how we're translating NYI NANG. And we're not saying duality.

Okay? Which is one of those words that sounds cool and has no meaning. All right.

Yeah, and that is the case, because those higher middle way people take the position, SEPA, that, if something is that, then... by the way, if something is KUN SROB, okay? So, the day is KUN SROB.

Okay? If... and YIN NO doesn't make any sense here.

But again, that's a feeling you can only develop after many years of translating. Okay? Because you will struggle with the NO for weeks, and then you'll suddenly realize it was a misspelling.

Okay? Well, NO is a conclusion.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, so...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it doesn't make any sense.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, it doesn't make any sense.

[Speaker 1]
So anyway, if something is KUN SROB, then although it appears to exist in truth, in truth it exists not in truth. Okay? There's a discrepancy.

It appears to exist really, meaning from its own side or in and of itself. Like fire appears to be hot from something inside of it. But, the way it really is, NAD SO, is that it's not hot by itself.

It's hot because you hurt somebody in the past. Okay? And fire doesn't have to be hot.

And people can pick up fire. Okay? Okay.

Alright. Do we have time? Are we okay?

What time do we have to go? I really want to finish this sentence. I propose we make the picture late.

Is it picture time?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Today is picture time, but I don't think it's right now. It'll be after the next class.

Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Let's do this sentence. I'm just going to read the sentence, okay? DIN NAS BYAS PA'I Because this is such an important point, it deserves more explanation.

So, gupa, I'm going to translate as deserves. Or it would require more explanation. Or it deserves more explanation.

But, MONGS DU GROG, a very common expression, I worry that my book would get too long. MONGS DU GROG. So, I fear that my book would get too long.

GROG PA normally means an ungrounded suspicion. I had a GROG PA that my husband had a girlfriend, but then it blew away. So, GROG PA normally means an unfounded suspicion.

But in philosophy, it means, I fear that my book would become too long. SOGS KA'I ZHES DU NANG BA DANG MA GRUB BYED DE'I RGAGS BYA'I RGOL TSOR BZHIN TU PHRA BA'I So, how it is that we cancel the RGAGS BYA, that we deny the RGAGS BYA, the way in which we deny the RGAGS BYA, is very subtle, extremely subtle. When we say that for a non-arya, the thing they are perceiving, the thing they are perceiving does not exist the way it appears.

So, again use perceiving for shape. So, how we cancel the RGAGS BYA when we say what normal people think they see is not there, when we do that, that's a very subtle point. What's...

Why is it subtle? People will go too far. People will say, then it doesn't exist.

That's why it's subtle. They will go too far. RANG BYAG LTA BU'I LO KHUG TU CHUG KHA BA'I NAS NI YIN TE ZHIB BYA BYED DGOS SU RANG BYAG LTA BU'I Now people like me, poor little me, we say in English, poor little me, I'm so stupid.

RANG BYAG LTA BU'I LO KHUG TU CHUG KHA BA'I Who could fit it into this tiny brain of mine? You know, this is too big to fit in this tiny brain of mine. KHUG means the inside of the brain, the hollow part in the skull.

Oh, it's too big to fit into little tiny brain like mine. Therefore, this is something that all you guys should try to thrash out. Thrash out?

Further. Further. Thrash out?

You guys got to work on it and try to do better than I did because my brain is too small. Because this is a really difficult point. When you say that things don't exist the way they look to a non-Aryan.

What's CHUG? Sorry?

[Speaker 2]
KHUG TU CHUG Oh, fit in. Okay, fit in.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, CHUG means to fit into a cup, for example. Oh, you better break it down into littler parts. You got to break it down into more finer detail.

Break it down into more detail, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Cool.

[Speaker 1]
It's a very cute statement. That kind of gives flavor to Choney Lama's books. He'll say stuff like that.

You know, who am I? I don't get this stuff, but hopefully you guys can figure it out later. Let me know what you come up with.

Send me a letter. Yeah, yeah, yeah. There is a...

Yeah, okay. Yeah, so I'm going to date it today, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Who's up next?