Медитации на пустоту: объяснение шагов к пониманию того, что ничто не является самим собой, занятие 53

[Speaker 2]
GYO KUN NAMTAK SHINGLA CHUPHAR SHOK YIDAM GURU RADHAMAN DALAKANAYATAYAMI SHIRDHAM TSOKHI CHOKNAM LA CHANG CHU PARDHU DHAKMI KHYAP SUKHI DHARGYI CHUN YEN GYIPE SUNAM GYI

[Speaker 1]
GYO LOVE AND CHEERS SAMGE CHUPHAR SHOK

[Speaker 2]
SHIRDHAM TSOKHI CHOKNAM LA CHANG CHU PARDHU DHAKMI KHYAP SUKHI DHARGYI CHUN YEN GYIPE SUNAM GYI GYO LOVE AND CHEERS SAMGE CHUPHAR SHOK SHIRDHAM TSOKHI CHOKNAM LA CHANG CHU PARDHU DHAKMI KHYAP SUKHI DHARGYI CHUN YEN GYIPE SUNAM GYI GYO LOVE AND CHEERS SAMGE CHUPHAR SHOK SHIRDHAM TSOKHI CHOKNAM LA CHANG CHU PARDHU DHAKMI KHYAP DHARGYI CHUN YEN GYI GYO LOVE AND CHEERS SAMGE CHUPHAR SHOK Do you remember this? It was something interesting, and it sort of like ties into some other text.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
That we've had this term? Well, I mean, that's sort of like a general way of thinking about that, but it was just like this cute term that the independent branch uses. Fake, real, and real, real?

That was my term. So independent branch holds that there do exist deceptive objects that exist the way they appear, so they accept the idea of a correct deceptive object. Well, the consequence branch says, no, it's impossible.

No thing exists the way it appears, so there is no such thing as a correct deceptive object. We're still struggling to get your folks to say it. Yeah, because Johnson and Jay seem to say that there was a correct deceptive object in that.

But that was the other guy. Yeah, I got you. We think.

Right. It was weird. It turned out to be of a claim.

Yeah. There was a syrup after four paragraphs of that. A lot of it.

Further away. Yeah. Okay, so now there's, I have an open-ended question for you, just for a little, we'll just have a tiny discussion.

So, many, many times throughout this book, Choney Lama says, there's so much more detail that's very important for you to understand, but I'm afraid my book's going to be too long. So, we're just going to go on. So, is he just like in a hurry and being a bit lazy?

Or is this some sort of message for us?

[Speaker 1]
That's a nice question.

[Speaker 2]
What do you think?

[Speaker 1]
That's a thoughtful question.

[Speaker 2]
I think the stage is catching up and he wants people to quickly learn and want the full tour. That we shouldn't be lazy. That we shouldn't be lazy.

Ourselves. Anybody else have? No.

Any thoughts about that?

[Speaker 1]
I think I can.

[Speaker 2]
I think you should say this. Go ahead.

[Speaker 1]
No.

[Speaker 2]
No, I think you should say this. I think he might be trying to encourage us to expand our horizon in terms of stuff that we've read.

[Speaker 1]
You mean we should go look at the other book?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, we should, you know, just don't stick to this, but, you know, once you've grasped all this material, there's more. Yeah, it represents. You can reference this material.

And it represents a work within a body that's much larger. Yeah. It's part of a balanced breakfast, not the only thing to eat for breakfast.

[Speaker 1]
There's a chance he was on a deadline, like his sponsor gave him a lot of money and he only had one book come out and he's afraid the sponsor's going to kill it. Speaking from my own point of view.

[Speaker 2]
He was like, I'm guessing around 85 years old when he wrote this and it was among the hundred that he did in the last 10 years.

[Speaker 1]
No, he only lived to be 73.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, so he was 72 at the time he wrote this and it's like, I've got a lot more me I've got to get out and so.

[Speaker 1]
That's also possible. Because he wrote a lot of tantric texts, very important tantric texts, wonderful tantric texts, which we should translate into second phase.

[Speaker 2]
Also later in his life.

[Speaker 1]
And he says it more in your book. I'm just saying, maybe he wanted to get on to that stuff. Maybe he decided that was enough.

There was enough material about this, but there wasn't any material about the inner body, which he spent a long time on the inner body. He spent a long time on explaining Chi. The best books on Chi are his books, which is kind of a long term plan for you guys.

[Speaker 2]
Great. He also, he says it more in your book than he says it in other books, right? Which brings to mind, what is the purpose of your book?

It's not necessarily to keep studying your book, but to actually take it to the cushion.

[Speaker 1]
That's interesting.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, so sexy Tibetan boys.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, yeah. Got it.

[Speaker 2]
Correct. Correct. Yeah, there's our correct.

Call point, you got to get in there and mark it. Too difficult this time.

[Speaker 1]
That's cute. Detail.

[Speaker 2]
A little bit more than that.

[Speaker 1]
Particular.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you for your attention to participants.

[Speaker 1]
What does it mean?

[Speaker 2]
Well, that has so many fine details that you have to get up close to figure out what it is. Like, is that the ocean? No, it's not.

It's actually a green field. Oh, really? Is it?

It's a purple field. Oh. Oh, I'll take the plane.

All right, here we go. Purple field's majesty.

[Speaker 1]
Hello? Hello? Spider-Man, fire from home.

Thank you. Oh, vacation's over. Okay, okay.

Okay, here we go. He promised us five proofs for emptiness. Of things or people?

Of things. Of things. He finished the proof for the emptiness of people, and now he's talking about the emptiness of things.

And he gave us one already, which was the ciktata. Things are neither one nor many. Neither one nor more than one.

And now he's going on to my favoritely named proof, which is called sliver of diamond.

[Speaker 2]
I saw someone where these five were grouped together as the five great...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, they could be. I mean, they could be. But, you know, the famous statement is that intelligent people want a thousand proofs.

You know, and then that kind of blows up the idea that people who want to see emptiness should just not learn anything and not clutter their minds. So, I'm a cheater.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Isn't it saying Bodhisattvas want to learn a thousand proofs? Yeah. That makes you Mahayana.

[Speaker 2]
Cool.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, go, read. Hey, here's something we can understand.

[Speaker 2]
Yay!

[Speaker 1]
Yay! Yay!

[Speaker 2]
Sekme.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, he misspelled it, right? Or the typist. By the way, this is what I'm afraid somebody in Mongolia could do.

Because you never see this, and it's correct. And this typist either consciously or subconsciously corrected it. And that would ruin the sentence.

And the sentence could be twisted to fit the Sikh. And it would be totally wrong. Yeah, I just added that just now.

So, don't worry about it. Yeah. Okay, go.

I'm going to cut it, okay? Because there's more than one. I just figured out the structure of it.

Okay, so just read this sentence. In English. Good.

Yeah, good. No. The other guys.

Okay, so first he's going to give positions of other groups about this question. You know. Because I read ahead.

But normally, chok nga is the ... chir gu.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
The guy who starts the argument is called the first half. No, that's different. No, it's funny.

When you say chir gu, nga gu, it's different. Yeah. Or it depends who speaks first, actually.

But normally the chir gu is the opponent. But here the chok nga is the opponent.

[Speaker 2]
How do you spell chir gu?

[Speaker 1]
It means latter, latter arguer. Arguerer. P-H-Y-I-R-G-O-L.

Right? Yeah. Okay, so anyway.

What he says is, before he gives the proof, he wants to give ... This proof involves mu shi. Do things grow from themselves?

Do they grow from something else? Do they grow from both? Or do they grow from neither?

And I like his ... I like this section very, very much. And we can use it in many other books.

But he says, let's go find someone who says each one is correct. Let's go find someone who says that something grows from itself, something grows from something else, self-existently, something grows from both, and something grows from neither. He says, let's go find some weirdos, besides the mixed nuts.

Yeah, mu shi, kyen go, that's a different one, yeah. Yeah, that's ... And by the way, they are related though.

They are interrelated. Okay, yeah, now we are kind of taking a detour to Ben's text for a few minutes. Okay, please read.

I loved your kyi. That was well done. Okay, chir kyewa.

Oh, there's two good things.

[Speaker 2]
What?

[Speaker 1]
You're cool. Two su.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, so this syllogism in a way, what Choney Lam is trying to say is, this syllogism in a way is a reaction to a previous viewpoint. Chok ngur, right? A previous viewpoint.

And the first of the options that we go through is that something could grow from itself. And usually it's just dismissed out of hand by authors, and said, well that's impossible, let's go on. But he says, there's a reason why they gave that part of the syllogism, because there is somebody who believes that, and it's the ...

the sang kya. Okay, why called sang kya? Because they count stuff.

Into ...

[Speaker 2]
25 groups.

[Speaker 1]
25 groups, yeah. Although 25 is the boss of them all. Okay.

So, this Hindu school, which is supposed to be the root school of yoga, I mean, it's supposed nowadays to be the root school of yoga practice, but ... but nobody in yoga practice knows what they believe. Literally.

So anyway, here it is. If something were gonna ... grow, well, it'd have to exist.

Like, if you die, you have to exist, right Sugeng? And ... you can't say the baby ...

you can't say the child grew, but there's no child. You see what I mean? When you use the verb grow, there has to be something grows.

Okay. They say, to say the sprout grows, is a ... you guys use the phrase, the sprout grows, unthinkingly, because there is no sprout when the growth starts.

You know, your idea that there was no sprout, and then the sprout ... the sprout grew, but they didn't grow yet. How can you say sprout ...

the sprout grew? You see what I mean? How can there be a subject of that sentence who is doing what the sentence says, who's not there yet?

Okay, got it? That's like saying the president decided ... somebody got elected president, but he's not president, and you say he ordered something.

You know what I mean? The president got elected president. Yeah.

President Trump was elected. But he's not President Trump, he's some schmuck trying to get elected. Then he ...

after he's elected, you see what I mean? So, how can you say that? They say it must somehow be there, to grow.

And then they ... then they have to say, okay, right? So, YOD DGOS PA'I means it must already exist.

DGOS PA'I YANG, GNYUD GO YANG, even the sprout, and the sprout included, if it didn't exist in the time of the seed, before the sprout started to grow, if the sprout were somehow not hiding in the seed, okay, how could it grow? Well, what grows? How could you say the sprout grew?

You'd have to say, grew, because there's no sprout yet. Okay, but you do say the sprout grows, so there must have been something in the seed that was already there. DUS SU, but it was MI ZAL.

It was hidden, or concealed, or ... yeah. Yeah, it wasn't exactly clarified.

Undefined is good. ZUL GYIS YOD PA, it existed in a way where it was still undefined. GNYIS means, and nothing more, so you have to catch the GNYIS.

Only, it was only as some vague undefined thing, but it was there. Then ... Oh no, I wouldn't say, I wouldn't use defined because it has so many connotations.

Yeah, but I also wouldn't use clear. I would try to find another word. Indistinct?

Indistinct? How about indistinct? Something like that.

But clear is ... I think people translate it as clear without thinking about it. So if you choose clear after thinking about it, I'm okay with that.

But ... I'd say distinct maybe, but it was indistinct. Something like that, in my opinion, if it were me.

And then, this LAR is very difficult because LAR usually means again. Like LAR YANG YONG means he came back. He came again a second time to the class.

[Speaker 2]
We said featureless a lot of times.

[Speaker 1]
But LAR ZEL BA means, that's very difficult to translate correctly. It's not that it re-clarified or it re-became distinct or something like that. It's something like ...

I don't know. You see, it doesn't mean re-doubled. It means ...

Made itself known or something? It doesn't mean came back as distinct. It means turned out, flipped and became distinct, or something like that.

It's like ... the definition of a ZEL MA. SARDU.

It's the SARDU MI LUS BA'I RIG PA. Yeah, you shouldn't say new. You should say fresh.

Right? It doesn't mean it's the first time it happened. It means ...

it's fresh and not ... and not a memory, in that case, right? So, don't blindly translate SARDU as new.

And don't blindly translate LAR as again. Because it's not becoming clear again. It was never clear before.

That's all I'm saying, okay? Normally, LAR means again. It became clear again.

But you have to somehow say it unfolded. You see what I mean? It got revealed, yeah.

It's the RE and revealed, and the RE and revealed doesn't mean to go backwards. That's all I'm saying, okay? Revealed as part of the perfect?

Yeah. Revealed itself? Yeah.

And then it revealed itself and grew. And therefore, that S is therefore BDAG GIS YOD Things do grow from themselves. Therefore, things do grow from themselves.

Sankhya system. The tree was present in the tree's seed before the tree's seed split open or else there couldn't have anything ... you couldn't ever say something came out of the seed.

Okay? And it kind of ... their frustration is ...

is reflecting the fact that things are empty, and it is impossible. It is impossible for a tree to come out of a seed because there's no tree yet. Wouldn't they say, therefore, the tree would not have grown out of the seed?

Who would say that? Sankhya? Because it wouldn't be ...

Well, they would say the tree grew out of the seed, but it's a tree that was there to start with. But it was just not distinct. And then it got revealed.

So ... But you choose the language. You have time to think about it.

We're under pressure of, you know, a class, but you have days and days to think about it.

[Speaker 2]
We also said, like, obscure from yourself.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
We also said obscure from yourself.

[Speaker 1]
And I don't mind if you guys don't choose the same word, because I know you have your own tastes. Okay. And that's why you're a translator.

Okay, so please ... Yeah, I know. That's ...

The editor's going to have to do that. Okay, I just pushed it all down so it'd be together. Please read.

Oh, by the way, and I would cut this. See, he's listing other schools. See the pattern?

The jangchenpas, the prasangi ... Sorry, what are they called? Prasangi, svatantrikas, the jins ...

What do you call these guys? Vartit ... The ones for a whale.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, the charvakas.

[Speaker 1]
Charvakas, and he's listing, as he promised here, chok na, other guys, other guys' beliefs. He's listing other guys' beliefs. Okay.

Yeah, now, why did they put it on Cupid? Yeah, that's really weird.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, it's a pretty mean thing to look at.

[Speaker 1]
That's an essay you can get your graduate students to write about.

[Speaker 2]
Or middle way guys.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah. Yeah, that's a very interesting question. And if you guys really went home and thought about it, you would learn something.

But it's not going to happen. Okay, RANG RGYUD PA. Yeah, so the proof is things don't grow from themselves, things don't grow from something else, things don't grow from both, and things don't grow without a cause.

And the tough one is the second one. Because it looks like stuff grows from other stuff. The pen grows from the mental seed.

It looks like you could say that. But the implication is RANG GI TSE NI'I RGYUD DUG PAS RANG GI TSE NI'I RGYUD DUG PAS Well, in and of itself or something like that. Okay, by definition.

So let's read, can you translate the whole sentence? For our Japanese guests. Chinese, Japanese guests.

Which is who?

[Speaker 2]
Good.

[Speaker 1]
Which downstairs a few days ago we called the 50-50 school. Half of this class is coming this way, half of it is coming from me. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
And others, and probably meaning those other ones will grow it.

[Speaker 1]
Maybe. Yeah, I think you could say that.

[Speaker 2]
So they're going to do something by those guys.

[Speaker 1]
They would say that I believe GZHAN GYI RGYUD growing from others RGYUD does exist, is possible.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, is possible.

[Speaker 1]
Because, here's the S, because because something like a something like a sprout does does grow from a GZHAN from another cause in and of itself which exists from something else which acts as its cause and which does exist by definition. What would you, if someone said, what do you mean by exists by definition? What's something easier you could say?

What's a, what do you, give me a normal example of what you mean something exists by definition. Everyone would like Trump because he's... I like fire, you know.

It's just easier, okay. Fire is hot by definition because that, the definition of fire is hot burn. It's something that burns you, so nobody made fire hot.

Fire is hot by itself. Yeah, that's all. So, in a way, it exists by definition.

[Speaker 2]
Well, in this case, right, the cause is by definition different from the result because it's that which burns the result which isn't necessarily.

[Speaker 1]
Well, you could say that. But the point is that the the thing that causes it is something else. To say that something else causes a thing is correct in all school, in the higher school.

But to say that something comes from something else and that something else had the quality inside it of bringing that thing about by itself, that's wrong. Because it's coming from you and not from somewhere inside the cause. Cool?

The husband doesn't yell because of something going wrong with him. Let's take the yelling of the husband as the result. What's the cause?

Yeah, and it's not something from him. Well, they would say it is. You see, they would say it is coming from something in him.

In him. I like the word in nowadays to replace all these Buddhist words. There's nothing in him that's making him yell.

It's you. That's all.

[Speaker 2]
Hopefully, you can go look earlier in your text when he was talking about it and see if he gave you a clue that he's referencing.

[Speaker 1]
Now, unfortunately, he now jumps to...

[Speaker 2]
It's the cebupe.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, no, he's going to jump to... Please read. By the way, it's often cebupe, but I'm going to leave it because it's a third syllable and that's okay.

I wouldn't change it. Like pasawa means somebody from Lhasa. Tabu.

There's a tea disease going around today. Yeah, and this could be an answer here for your graduate student. Why are they called cebupas?

Because they believe farming kills animals. Growing cotton, growing crops kills bugs. Therefore, they refuse to wear clothes.

And they still exist. You can see them. But a human body who's been out in the sun for ten years is not that attractive, to tell you the truth.

So anyway, they were called jain. Jain means naked. It's interesting because jaincharyant, jain without a strengthened vowel is also jain.

Anyway. Also called digambara. Digambara.

Digambara. Yeah, all they wear is this guy. The only clothes they wear is this guy.

It's kind of a beautiful name. There's two sex. There's two sex.

A lot of the modern ones will wear a loincloth just to be, so they don't freak people out. But nobody gets upset in Gujarat state if you see a guy walking around with no clothes on. Okay, anyway.

The naked ones... And by the way, that's why they got into the diamond business. All the diamond dealers in Mumbai are jain.

Like 90%. The big ones. Because they think digging stones doesn't kill bugs, but digging onions does.

They're not allowed to eat onions because it grows under the ground.

[Speaker 2]
Anyway, here we go. It's not just because the factory workers trust they weren't sneaking out.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Now, they say something like a zaboom, yeah, a clay pot, grows from its... from a self.

This means atman. Okay. A big self.

Which already incorporates it. It's like God. Okay.

So, you know, when a potter makes a pot, it's something that was part of God already. It was already incorporated into God. Okay.

So, it comes from the being who already incorporated it. Therefore, things grow from themselves. Things can grow from themselves.

The pot was already part of God, and then the potter, you know, it grew. Okay. So, therefore, things can come from themselves.

But, they also add that there's also... Yeah, things growing from something else because the same pot is was crafted by a potter. So, when something like a pot is made, two kinds of birth are happening.

The pot is coming from itself because it was always part of God and it always existed. But, the potter is also revealing it in a way. So, he gets credit too.

So, it's... Now, is it appropriate that that a naked one comes after the three... 4A Buddhist school?

Yeah, yeah, because you got one that says Rang. Things grow from themselves. Then you got the second guy said things grow from something else, and then the third guy said it's both.

It's both. Things grow from themselves and from other things. It's kind of...

It's cool the way he did that.

[Speaker 2]
It's also... It's a clue that the second one, you have to be subtle to understand why it's a problem because there's even a Buddhist school and even a member of... Yeah, that's true.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's an alert that it's probably the most difficult one, right? Now, we get to the Charvakas. What's their main thing they're always accused of?

[Speaker 2]
The nihilists.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, they're one of the very few Indian groups, maybe the only one that would say there's no past life, there's no... But also something else. What was the other thing?

Karma? They have a problem with karma?

[Speaker 2]
They definitely have a problem with karma.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. I mean, that's... I mean, you know...

Those are main nihilists. So, it's like possible to grow up in ancient India and not believe in karma and not believe in a future life. And this is the only guys.

So, they're like the weirdos of all Indian philosophy. Everybody else at least believes those other two, karma and past life, future life. All right, go ahead, please.

Whoa. Okay. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.

Ndumba. Ndumba. ZL is Punese.

Ndumba. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
All right. Okay, cool. The color of the...

The color of the... Blue lips? The eye on the...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, the dong is specifically the circle on a peacock's feather.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, like the eye on a peacock's feather.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it's the eye on a peacock's feather. The sharpness of the dong. Those colors...

yeah, and the sharpness of a cactus thorn, and the roundness of a pea, ka-sa-ki-kyang ma-che-pe. It was, none of these things was crafted by people. No one made peas round, no one made cactuses sharp, and no one painted peacock feathers, okay?

Therefore, they are gyu-mey-le-kya. They happen without a cause. So that's the third possibility, right?

They happen without a cause, according to this school. And, you know, in English we'd say it's natural. We use the word natural, and that's kind of like without a special cause.

She-duh-ching. And by the way, in Buddhism, nothing's natural, even the lack of nature to things. Okay, le-kyo she-duh-ching.

I would take this tam-che to be all the above schools, okay? And, well, he did ching, which is really uncomfortable to cut it, and he put an O with two commas here. He really doesn't want us to cut it from that last one, although I was tempted.

I almost did it, so, you know, if you want to. Tam-che-kyang, they all say what? If something grows, it grows from its own side.

It grows from its own side. If something grows, it grows from its own side. Okay, go.

Drao. No. No.

Tam-che-dra. Everything is similar to that. Tam-che, all those groups, dra.

Yeah, all those groups are the same, in believing that things come from their own side. Whether they come from no cause, with a cause, both with a cause, they all believe it comes from its own side. Cool?

All right, keep going. We'll see you guys. Have a nice meditation.

We'll try to walk heavy when we go to the toilet, and we'll talk.

[Speaker 2]
Nirgop-tsul-ko-te-we. Wang-tu-che-na-che-che. Rang-mu-ne-mi-che-te.

Dak-me-mi. Shen-le-kyang. Ni-ka-le-kyang-te.

Yu-me-le-kyang-te-we-che.

[Speaker 1]
Good. Ko-te-wa is an idiom. Anybody?

Oh, to begin this program? This is the ko means ko, ha-ko-ge-min-du. Oh, understand.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
So, ko-te-wa? Easy. Yeah, easy and understand.

Let me make it easy for you. It's a very attractive word this morning. The other guy didn't ko-te-wa.

Okay, so ko-te-wa means, let's just make it easy for you guys. Okay. Gok-tsul means, how do we deny, and it happens to be the last thing he said.

Yeah, that things come from their own side. Yeah, so, how do we deny the idea that they all hold equally, that things can come from their own side. Well, let me make it easy for you.

Okay, here we go. Oh, let's take, did you read yet? I'm sorry.

So, let's take nyu-ku. Let's take a sprout. Rang-ngu-ne-mi-ke-te.

It doesn't grow from its own side, because A, and this kyang is meant to be like a kang-shik, but with four parts. Well, first of all, it doesn't grow from itself. Second of all, it doesn't grow from something else.

Third of all, it doesn't grow from both. And fourth of all, it doesn't grow without a cause. And he just gave you the Dorje Sigma.

But he tied it into the belief of all the schools hold. So, it's very skillful. It's very, very unusual what he just did.

He said, this school believes it comes from itself, this school believes it comes from something else, but self-existent. This school believes both. This school believes things happen with no cause.

They got sharp thorns, don't make, nobody sharpened them. And it, you know, but they're all the same in the sense that they believe that things come from their own side. And I'll prove to you they don't come from their own side.

They don't come from their own side because they don't come themselves, they don't come from something else, they don't come from both, they don't come from something else. He did a beautiful thing. He brought it back to the original argument, which is really, it's like painting a masterpiece.

This last paragraph is like a masterpiece. He was in some kind of mood when he wrote your text. I don't know.

Yeah, it's a conchique, except with four elements. You know, he didn't pay me. He didn't pay me by check, he didn't pay me by cash, he didn't give me a credit card, and his sister didn't come to give the money.

And it just means A, B, C, D. So I might put, if it were me, I would put one in parentheses, two in parentheses, three. And Rinpoche, when he was learning English, he'd say, it also doesn't come from itself.

It also doesn't come from something else. It also doesn't come from both. You could say, neither does it come from this, nor that, nor that, nor that, but it's a little uncomfortable with four elements.

Yes? Geshe-la, how come they don't have to use the kyam after the dakme? Yeah, that's a good question, because it's not also yet.

[Speaker 2]
Because it's not also yet.

[Speaker 1]
But it's a great question. By the way, sometimes they will put a kyam in there. Just, you know, some people would put a kyam in there.

Okay. You ready? I'm going to go this way, because it's referring back to here.

Dambo. Yeah, now I just want to offer $10. There hasn't been much money lately, for certain reasons.

What's sin? Yeah, $10 shopping, to the usual place. Do you report this all on your...

never mind.

[Speaker 2]
It's a gift, right? You didn't have to work.

[Speaker 1]
So, things don't grow from themselves, because that was the first of the four options, right here. Things don't grow from themselves, because if they did, then something which had troops in would have to give. Yeah, something that had already come out, would have to come out.

So, things don't grow from themselves. Who does that refute? Who was that?

Yeah, the sanghyas who said the tree was sitting there in the seed, and then it was revealed, that the veil was torn off, and the statue was already finished. Okay, yeah. RANG GI RGYUD DU NA GRUB ZIN Yeah, and there's the past tense of SUG GRUB, right?

Which already existed. Alright, and he wants... he's going to go on this one for a while.

Okay, please read. And by the way, this is a very famous argument of why the sanghyas are wrong. Very famous.

Anybody want to take a shot? I'll say it this way. If the tree were already in the seed, then...

You were counseling of trees coming out. No, you're skipping ahead. All he says is GRUB AMIT.

Yeah, there's no point. What's the point? If the tree's already in the seed, then why should it pop out?

What's the point? It's already a tree. So why should it come out of the seed?

It could just stay there and be a tree. There's no point. Then he says, well, there would be a point.

He's hard-headed. And he says, well, but there would be a point. And we say, there's no point because...

Please read.

[Speaker 2]
What does that mean?

[Speaker 1]
YOD NA. Yeah. What does that mean?

No tupa, right?

[Speaker 2]
No soup today.

[Speaker 1]
No meat, right? Yeah. If it weren't necessarily...

[Speaker 2]
If it did have to...

[Speaker 1]
If a tree had to come out of the seed, even though it was already there...

[Speaker 2]
If it were necessary... If it were necessary?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, then it would have to be... It'd be like an aging rock star. It would have to reinvent itself every second.

You know? It would have to then put out another one, then have to put out another one. If it went till 3 o'clock, it'd have to be 50 of them.

If it went till 4 o'clock, there'd have to be 200 of them. If going from seed to tree the first time, the tree is already in the seed, then unnecessarily a tree is going to a tree. Well, then in the second instant, the tree would have to produce another tree unnecessarily also.

An unnecessary production of extra trees would be THUG ME. Endless. THUG means they're ending.

THUG means it would... Could it come to a place where it meets, right? Meaning, could there be a last one?

And he says, no. It'd have to keep... If it's necessary for the tree to make a tree to come out of the seed when it's already a tree in the seed, then in the second moment of the tree it'd have to make another tree to come out of the tree because if this tree that already was in the seed had to make another tree to come out, then for the tree to go into the second moment of the tree it'd have to produce another tree.

And then in the third moment Yeah, over and over. So, translate yang yang as over and over. It would have to be born again and again, over and over again.

Say again? Yeah, that's true. Okay, keep going.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, over and over again.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, moreover, no things can't grow from themselves because – now I'll just read it for you. It couldn't be the case that a tree that already existed in the seed could come out of the seed without changing into something else, gyur me, you see? Without some kind of change, okay?

Without some kind of change, which is what you're saying it does do. If you ask them, is the tree that's inside the seed the same as the tree that's outside of the seed, the next moment they'd say, well, yeah. And then we'd say, well, now you're talking about an impossible thing, because you're talking about a functioning thing that doesn't change over two moments.

That's all, okay? Now you've gone too far. If your idea of a tree that's present inside the seed is correct, then the tree that comes out of the seed would have to be different from the tree that was inside the seed, and then it's not a tree anymore.

Because if it didn't change, it would have to be an unchanging thing, like space. Therefore, there's another reason why the tree can't be in the seed. Because don't forget, it didn't grow, it was revealed.

The cloth was torn off the statue. The statue was already there. Their idea is that the statue didn't change after you pulled the cloth off, okay?

Okay. I want to say $50 for the Shindu, but let's say $50, what the heck, keep people awake. The Shindu is worth $50.

10, 9, 8, Bob Harper on the second side, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0. I win again. It's that present participalizer.

It's an ING, okay? Okay? In the presence of a case where the seed were not changing, if the seed didn't change its type, its aspect, okay?

And Shindu means in an ongoing instance where, okay? Present participle. If the seed were not transforming as the tree came out.

Okay? Present tensorializer. What was the past tensorializer?

[Speaker 2]
Sin.

[Speaker 1]
So, sin is, he's playing with sin and shin. There's sin, and here's shin. Okay?

So, if the seed didn't go through any transformations, then how could there be any result come out, okay? Cool? And here we go again.

Oh, sorry. Okay. Okay, okay, okay.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 58, 59, 60, 60, 61, 62, 63, 62, 63, 63, 63, 63, 63, 63, 63, 63, 63, 63, 63, 63, 63, 63, 63, 63, 63, 63, 63, 63, 63, 63, 63, 63, 63, 63, 63, 63, 63, 63, 63, 63, 63, 63 so goody-doo goody yeah thanks we can understand who's next