Медитации на пустоту: объяснение шагов к пониманию того, что ничто не является самим собой, занятие 56

[Speaker 2]
So I just want to apologize, I didn't realize my class was today, so I don't have a quiz prepared. So next time my class comes up, we'll have a longer quiz.

[Speaker 1]
OK, here we go. Oh, yeah, it's a good angle. It's recording my important part.

When in doubt, hit it with your, hit it hard. OK, we passed a part already, last term, where Choney Lamas was explaining the mu shi ken go, which are, we just had mu shi musim, right? The four combinations between two things.

And this is a famous proof of emptiness. It's called mu shi ken go. Say mu shi.

Ken go. Heavy prenasal because of an open vowel in front of it, right here. OK, ken go.

So it sounds like it's ken go. OK, ken go, like Ganden monastery. OK, so the proof is here.

Let's take all the results in the universe. They don't grow from their own side, because you don't get one result from one cause, you don't get multiple results from multiple causes, you don't get one result from multiple causes, and you don't get multiple results from one cause. So, four possibilities, all right?

Then he said, drup tul shen tu she, which means, if you want to know how to prove this, go, go find it somewhere else, which is really irritating. And we just passed it because we wanted to keep going. But to make a nice translation on Mixed Nuts standards, which are extremely high, we should give it to the reader.

We shouldn't repeat his unhelpfulness, you know? We should have it in a footnote. We should, we should help the reader, OK?

So drup tul, as I mentioned earlier today, it means how you prove it, right? But sul dru, if you reverse those two, it means how you prove the three relationships that are necessary for a correct reason, right? Now, let's see if previously he has used drup tul or tul drup, OK?

Let's look for tul drup. One, two, three, four, five, I mean, it's all over. So somebody got, I don't know, the guy who carved it or something.

By the way, drup tul makes sense. How you prove it makes sense. But his style, his pattern has been to say, sul drup.

How do you prove the three relationships here? And so we went looking for either one last night, like around 11 or something, because I had a long nap when I got home, so I was able to work at night. And we found a lot of options, OK?

So here we go. Oops. Yeah, I got a lot of options for you.

Here's Kedem Tembedagye, same person. Sorry, Sugeng's author, OK? He's got one, OK?

He goes through the drup tul, see? Like here, he says, kelpa drupala means, by the way, basically when you want to prove a logical statement, when you want to prove the three relationships in a logical statement, which is the definition of a good logical reason, OK? A good logical statement.

If three relationships hold, it's true. If three relationships don't hold, it's untrue. The definition of a correct reason in Buddhism is tsu sum yinpa.

It has the three relationships. Give an example, Dracuchen Mitate Chepuche, the most famous reason of all time. Let's take sound.

It's changing because it was created. Why is that the classical argument? Yeah, because of Aum.

They were talking to people who said that Aum was eternal, or unchanging, OK? And they, so they said, take sound. It is changing because everything that's created is, because it's created.

The two important relationships here are chok chö, which means, does one apply to three? Is it true that sound is created? The other important relationship is, if three, then two.

If it's created, then it has to be changing. There's a third relationship, which is called dok chö, which means, if it's not changing, it can't be created. OK?

Not two, not three. But the fact is, if the second relationship holds, the third one always holds. So basically, you have to prove two relationships.

Because if the second one holds, the third one automatically holds. Why they have to have three, then, you know, you've got to go to the winter debates for a couple of years. Really, it's a big deal.

So anyway, all we have to do, really, is prove two relationships. We have to show how two relationships hold. The chok chö, one is three, and the chöpa, the jekyap, which is, if three, then two.

OK, got it? So here, he said, go find the confirmation of the relationships elsewhere. So we're like, OK, we will.

And here we got it, with this reason. OK? And it's K.

Dukdenpa Dargen, a very reliable source from the greatest monastery in the universe. John gave me an interesting history of Sarah Monastery yesterday, which is like this thing, which means I put it on my shelf. No, if it's briefer, it goes in the bathroom.

But who can poop that long? So, just kidding. So, here's K.

Dukdenpa Dargen. I'll prove to you the jekyap. OK?

Khyapa dupa la means, I'm going to prove the jekyap. If three, then two for you. With this mu shi, with this proof of emptiness.

Now, what does he say about the first relationship, which is called, chok chö. He says, ta-da, chok chö shen le she.

[Speaker 2]
So you can find that somewhere else.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. OK? He messed us up.

He messed us up. I think the other guy was following him. He's like, oh, you can find the other one somewhere else.

I think they're collaborating, right? OK. So, I propose we skip K.

Dukdenpa Dargen. If he doesn't have the chutzpah to give us both relationships, I don't want to talk to him. OK.

So, here I got another one for you. This is tong tun chen mo. This is K.

Dukje. Somebody should translate it. If you don't do it, I'm going to do it.

OK. I'm going to start it before you're ready. Here, tsud drubpa la.

Now, he says, chok chö drubpa la. I'll show you why there's a chok chö. The one, if one, three.

One is three. OK? What's he say about if three, two?

He says, oh, that's the same as in chig tu drubpa.

[Speaker 2]
OK.

[Speaker 1]
So, I'm not going to cover it. The other guy didn't want to do the one. Yeah.

No, the other guy is going to do the kelpa and not the chok chö. Now, this guy says, go look somewhere else for the kelpa, and I'll do the chok chö. You irritating guys.

So, I kept going, kept going, kept going, kept going, kept going, kept going, kept going, kept going, kept going, kept going, kept going.

[Speaker 2]
Still M. K. Dukje?

[Speaker 1]
Here's chan kya rubpa doi jay.

[Speaker 2]
He's got to do both, or you couldn't really call the great.

[Speaker 1]
Well, I went and got the chig tu drubpa from him.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, right.

[Speaker 1]
Because K. Dukje said, go get the chig tu drubpa, chok chö. Right.

I'll give you the kelpa, but you go get the chok chö somewhere else.

[Speaker 2]
The other way around. No. I'm sorry.

Yeah. Huh? He never wrote about it himself?

[Speaker 1]
Then, something happened at midnight, after 20 pages later.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
I found it in Tung Tu Chimu.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, back to Tung Tu Chimu.

[Speaker 1]
Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, that's good. So, he was referring to his own chig tu drubpa. He's himself.

Yeah, he is. Oh, that's not a good thing.

[Speaker 1]
He did his own chig tu drubpa.

[Speaker 2]
I think he's referring to his own book.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, which I couldn't find the first time. So, I suggest we go to K. Dukje as a sort of auspicious, since someone in this room's got to do him.

And it's going to be a long project. Oh, it's going to take about nine years or something, but it's worth it. Okay, anyway, let's go get the half that he offered us, and then we'll get the half that he refused to offer us.

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Was that a book called One or Many? Yeah. No, prove.

[Speaker 1]
Somebody wrote a book about just one or many. Yeah, it's not a very long book, but it is a book. Okay, here we go.

Okay, here we go, Tung Tu Chimu. Where is that? So, I'm going to say we're going to use this in our footnote.

How's that? Okay. Because in the end, we can use this in half our footnote.

Okay. Okay. Okay, so here we go.

Let me see where we want to start. Hmm. Well, let's stop here and see how it goes.

I think it was Chang Kyam. I'm not sure. We'll check.

Okay, here we go.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Let's cut here. Okay. Okay.

Good. As for how to prove the relationships, because he's going to try to get away with two, which is okay. As for proving the relationships, which is what your author meant to say, but he reversed it.

Okay. For the Kyaba, if you want the Kyaba, okay, to prove the Kyaba, I want you to go to Chitrajo. But he gave it a more complete name, and God bless him.

Why?

[Speaker 2]
Because often the du and the tu are confused, because du means tumah, and tu is just a postposition.

[Speaker 1]
When you say, go to the store, right? In Tibetan, it's la. Store la dro.

Go to the store. Store la. Okay.

That's a preposition, but it's really a postposition, because it comes after the store. Store to go. Okay.

So in Tibetan, that's called la dun. It means the two series. Okay.

And there are rules about which one you use, because there's la, there's tu, there's suru duru nala tu. In the grammar, I memorized it. It's a mess.

Suru duru nala tu. These are all the choices. So here, if it means two, it should be spelled tu, after a G.

Okay. So people go through all these logic texts and fix them to chik du jau, which is wrong, because it's really chik dang du jau, neither one nor many. They took the first part of many is the same as tu, and then they fixed it wrong, which is what you're going to do with my books later, and I curse you ahead of time.

Okay. Don't fix my stuff, okay? All right.

There's a reason for it. Try to find the reason before you fix it. Sometimes it really does need to be fixed.

Are we still cursed? Okay. Yeah, I'll still curse you.

Okay. So anyway, God bless him that he said chik dang du jau instead of chik du jau. Brilliant.

Very nice. Okay. Who is that?

Great, great book. Someone should translate. Did I say that?

Yeah. By the way, this is heavy penasal, and it shouldn't be, but it is. What does it mean?

Things within that class, or things that are like that? The same follows through all. Yeah, what he's saying is, it's basically the same.

Ring da means basically the same. It's a way of saying basically the same. It means same type, okay?

The proof of the kya ba for mu shi ken go, proof of emptiness, is similar. It's pretty much the same as the proof for the kya ba of chik du jau, which are two proofs of emptiness, okay? Got it?

Basically the same. Ring da means same type. Same type, okay?

And then he doesn't give it to us. He goes on. So that, we got to remember to go back and find that.

Especially in his own book, you know? Did he give it?

[Speaker 2]
Wouldn't we just follow and go do it right now and then come back here?

[Speaker 1]
Nah. I mean, we should maybe, but I want to finish him. I want to finish this one.

By the way, the normal order is chok chö first, then kya ba, yeah. Because chok chö is considered number one. And then jay kyeb is considered number two.

And do kyeb is considered number three, normally, okay?

[Speaker 2]
So it's just forewarning that he's not going to do it.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, exactly. Yeah, I'll give you the kya ba later, okay? Now as far as chok chö, oops, I just wiped it out.

Okay, go. Let me split it somewhere convenient for you. Here, let's split it here.

Okay, go.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, chok chö drubpa la means, let's prove the first relationship is one is three.

[Speaker 1]
Number one is three, right? Mudambonyi gokpa, the first two combinations, which were, I don't remember. Okay, was it can be one, cannot be the other, cannot be the other?

Okay, I don't remember. You want to go find it? Should we go find it?

Mark this place. And now, is our order the same as his order? That's the only problem.

Yeah. Yeah, we have to know his order.

[Speaker 2]
Because he's going to talk about it.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, someone remember this.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
One to one, okay? Then many to many, then many to one, then one to many.

[Speaker 2]
One to one, many to many, many to one, one to many.

[Speaker 1]
Here we go again. One to one, many to many, that's easy. You want to write it down?

Okay, let's do it again. Many, sorry, one to one, many to many, many to one, one to many. Okay, got it.

That's Choney Lama's order. We're not quite sure. It's not necessarily Kedrupje's order, okay?

Okay, so if he's referring to the first two moves, what's he talking about? Yeah, one to one and many to many, okay? Can one cause create one result?

And can many causes create many results?

[Speaker 2]
Okay, that's all.

[Speaker 1]
One and three, right? No, first two. Well, it's his first two, but we don't know what's his first two.

Okay, I wonder if he mentions his first two. Oh, he does, okay. And he quotes another book.

Oh, he's different.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, write it different. He uses it different.

[Speaker 1]
Many causes create one. Many causes create many results. One cause creates many results.

And one cause creates one result, okay? He's interesting, by the way. He says he's going to treat the Rangyupa's treatment of Mushi Gengo, but let's hope it's not much different.

And he repeats it here. Let's check it again. He repeats it one to one.

Okay, now, okay, so cancel the one I just gave you. Here's his real one, okay? Dön Dampar.

In an ultimate sense, one cause cannot create one result. In an ultimate sense, one cause cannot create many results. In an ultimate sense, oh, by the way, he didn't put in an ultimate sense on the second one, but anyway, many causes cannot create one result.

That's the third one, okay? And then many causes cannot create many results, and many misspellings in this paragraph. Like doom.

Okay, anyway.

[Speaker 2]
But he just said he's presenting his own tantric.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, Kirubje says, I'm giving you the Mushi Gengo for Svatantrika, but I don't think we should confuse our reader further. This is going to be bad enough. Okay, Chögyam Trungpa.

So the first two mus. One to one, one to many. Okay, one to one, one to many.

One cause, one result. One cause, many results. Cannot.

It's always cannot. One cause cannot create one result, and one cause cannot create many results. That's the argument.

To prove emptiness. Yeah, ultimately speaking, okay? Mudambo nyi gopa.

Go ahead. Khyensum lajyate shinna. If I were to explain it by applying it to the khyensum.

The three conditions. The three types of conditions. And there are four, okay?

And we're going to get it in somebody else's text today. Stanley's? There are four classic Abhidharma khyens.

Okay, and it was treated in the first chapter of Nagarjuna. Let me go give it to you. I actually inserted my translation of that section into whoever's text it was.

We're going to hit it. But let me give it to you again, okay? And this is why we take so long to do.

Okay, here's the translation of the commentary to Nagarjuna's wisdom. The four factors is a big subject in Nagarjuna. And it doesn't come up.

Yay! Oops, misspelled. Here, this is classic, okay?

So somebody comes and says, what are the four conditions? So Kiryabja is only treating three of them, okay? But here's the classic four.

According to Nagarjuna, okay? Mentioned by Nagarjuna. The conditions are four.

There's a gyukin, which means causal condition. There's a mikin, which means the coffee cup which inspires a visual consciousness. There's the tematakin, which means misunderstanding your husband immediately leads to getting angry, okay?

It's called the immediately after factor, okay? And usually it's mental, okay? If you don't understand your husband when he yells at you, it's an immediate condition to get angry, okay?

And then... Sorry? Oh, it's called tematakin.

Yeah, in Abhidharma. So put kin after one. The first one's called gyukin.

The second is called mikin. The third one is called tematakin. And the fourth one is called dakin or dakpoyikin, okay?

Sometimes it's called dakpoyikin or dakin.

[Speaker 2]
Gen ngapa?

[Speaker 1]
Gen ngapa yomayin.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, there isn't.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, there is no fifth. This is Nagarjuna. And this is early Nagarjuna.

This is the fourth verse of his whole book, you know? Because he discusses the emptiness of the four conditions. And he takes them from Abhidharma, okay?

So we haven't got to it yet. In five causes, four conditions in the Abhidharma second chapter. Okay, we haven't got there yet.

Sorry, what? Oh, there's a condition called the cause condition. Okay, it's kind of confusing.

It's very confusing. And actually, our author, here's the English, okay? I added condition to everything in the translation, okay?

All right, causal condition, object condition, condition for what comes immediately after. I find the dominant condition. There is no fifth kind of condition, okay?

[Speaker 2]
How do you want to come immediately after?

[Speaker 1]
Here, dematakin.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, the fourth line?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Does the editor need to notice that?

[Speaker 1]
Okay. And here's commentary by Chodri Lama skillfully interweaving the root text, which is difficult to translate correctly. Difficult to weave it in English, okay?

So the italics are the root text. Causal condition, which exists in the form of any seed which acts to produce a particular result. Okay, that's a gyukan.

That's a cause condition. A cause condition, okay? And what's an object condition?

Any object which produces a mental awareness of itself, like a coffee cup, inspires a perception of a coffee cup. By the way, which is the central problem of ignorance. $100 question.

$100. You got to say more for $100. I want more answers.

That's getting closer. $100 to the Stanley Chen family. I think Nick should get $25 and he should get $75.

Because he was on it, but he just didn't talk enough. Because he had to take care of Amelie last night. And this morning.

[Speaker 2]
Got it?

[Speaker 1]
You know, I got this dog. I can almost understand what it's like. They're very similar.

Constant attention. He needs constant attention. No, he gets in the corner and starts howling.

Anyway, so what Stanley said, to just restate it, it's very interesting because this is the one that causes the trouble. You think that the outside object inspires the awareness of the outside object. Therefore, you get mad at your husband.

Because you say, the husband made me mad. You see what I mean? And in Madhyamika, we reverse it.

He's coming from you. Got it? So to think that he's causing your perception of him is the root of all evil.

This evil second Abhidharma cause, object condition, something you're looking at, inspires the awareness of it. And we feel like that. Oh, the sky's blue and it triggered my blue consciousness.

We believe that. We feel that. And that's what causes all our trouble.

OK, third one, dematakyan. Produces a result just after the cause has ended. I don't know.

I mean, anyway. And then the dominant condition. If it's present, of its own accord, will produce something.

Those are the classical rough descriptions, bhamshe. OK, bhamshe. What's bhamshe?

Bhamshe means like a rough description. It's not a technical definition. But you know.

[Speaker 2]
I know.

[Speaker 1]
I know. By the way, they're not mutually exclusive. OK, that's another thing.

And it's a messy thing. And to go to the khyens is a messy thing. And I don't know why anybody would go to the khyens.

But he did. OK, so now we're going to skip. We're going to go out of nirgarjuna.

We're coming back. Now, he wants to treat khyensum.

[Speaker 2]
He's only going to talk about three of them.

[Speaker 1]
Which three? We don't know yet. So mudambunim gopa khyensum jyate.

So to treat the first two mus, I'm going to see how they apply to the first three, to three of the conditions of the four. OK, got it? This Kedrupje's approach.

Let's talk about three of the conditions. And see if you can get the first two mus with them. What's the first two mus?

One to one and one to many. Which is pretty normal, right?

[Speaker 2]
I mean, we can easily remember because it's one.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, keep the first one. OK, good. OK, here we go.

Now, I'm going to split them. Let's number them. OK, first khyen, second khyen, third khyen.

OK, here we go.

[Speaker 2]
Are you going to read it again or are you going to do it again? Do you want to read this one? Talk to Drupala.

[Speaker 1]
Read this one. Read this one.

[Speaker 2]
Nikwongi, nikwongipa, khona, nikdangmikse, chikpo, khona, khe, ala. Read it. Yeah, she did.

Nikdangmikse, chikpo, khona, khe, ala.

[Speaker 1]
That's kind of weird. Nikdangmikse, chikpo, khona, khe, ala. It doesn't quite make sense.

But anyway, does a single instance of the sense power of the eye, he's not going to the coffee cup. He's going to the sense power of the eye. Does a single instance of the sense power of the eye cause only a second power of the eye?

Or does it create an awareness of what you're looking at? Only an awareness of what you're looking at.

[Speaker 2]
Is he referring to the next moment?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. He doesn't say.

[Speaker 2]
What kind of? And that leads to awareness and it leads to the next moment of that sense power.

[Speaker 1]
Now, I proposed the old system of, what do they call that in military? No. Parachute in behind them and work backwards.

Battle of the bulge, I guess. Yeah. Forget the first one.

I don't understand it. Let's go to the second one. And then maybe the first one will come clear.

Okay. So here we go. I use this a lot.

Dambodhana. Okay. If it's the case that the sense power of the eye can only create a second sense power of the eye, okay, if it's the case that a sense power, visual sense power, only creates a visual sense power, second one, in the next moment, and not a first moment awareness of the object, which is behind the sense power.

Got it? You okay? Yeah.

Okay. Okay. And why this is relevant to the Mushi?

Let's see.

[Speaker 2]
It's okay so far.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. So Dambodhana, if it's the first way, please read. Oh, which is not great.

[Speaker 2]
Dambodhana, lower top.

[Speaker 1]
Lower top. Down.

[Speaker 2]
Lower top.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Mishi ben che.

[Speaker 1]
Dambodhana, if it's only one-to-one, okay, if the eye power, sense power, can only create a single result of the next sense power, okay, then everybody's Lama. Meek Lama. Blind.

Then everybody in the world is blind. Yeah, because the sense power doesn't create the awareness. It only creates the sense power of the next moment.

So there's no awareness. Yeah. Okay.

So we just disproved one-to-one. Okay. If it's always that your eyeball can only create one result, like the eyeball of the next moment, then everybody in the world is blind.

So ta. Got it? We just beat the first.

But which kin are we in?

[Speaker 2]
I'd like to say we're in the Mikan.

[Speaker 1]
I'm not sure. Let's see where it goes. Okay.

Okay, please read. Nipa.

[Speaker 2]
Nipa tan long, lower top, che lower ta. Lower top. Lower top.

[Speaker 1]
And even if it's the second way, which is the na'ang, okay? And even if it's the second way, people are still blind. If it's the second way, people are still blind.

Why? Uh, because the first instance of the eye power could not, in a flow, create a second instance of itself.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
What, what is, he's still fighting one-to-one.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
He's still fighting one-to-one. What's the first one?

[Speaker 2]
The eye power. The first one is the eyeball.

[Speaker 1]
The eyeball. The patch of cells at the back of the eye. Right.

It can't just lead to another eyeball. I'll give you a choice. Are you a one-one guy?

Say yes. Okay, I'll give you a choice. Does the eye create the awareness of the eye, one-to-one?

Or does the eye create the eye of the next moment, one-to-one? Which one? And he goes, oh, oh, it creates the consciousness.

It creates, sorry, yeah, it creates the eye of the next moment. Okay, then everybody's blind. Because it does not trigger a consciousness.

Oh, oh, no, it triggers a consciousness. Oh, well, then in the second moment, you're blind. Because there's no second moment of eye power.

So this is still one-to-one. It's still one-to-one. Got it?

Cool. It's kind of cute. Cute and difficult.

Oh, yeah, tuni means inner flow. Connected. Temporally.

Tuni means inner flow. Okay, got it? And it's extremely rare.

I don't think I've ever seen it more than twice or something. Now. What?

Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
We're on to the third move.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, what happened to the second move? He's trying to save money. Well, you know, he's always trying to confuse people.

That's his.

[Speaker 2]
He's not as bad as Geltup J.

[Speaker 1]
Probably they used to go out for coffee and say, who'd you confuse today? Geltup didn't, could he, J? Anyway, let's go on.

Let's jump over the parachuters who jumped over the front line. Okay, here you go. This is very sophisticated and difficult.

Okay, so let's go slow. We're going to deny the third move, the third combination, which was?

[Speaker 2]
Many to one.

[Speaker 1]
Can many factors create a single cause? Can many factors create a single cause? Just to set it up for you.

No, I'm going to do it his way. He doesn't distinguish between them.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, which is part of what's so frustrating.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and by the way, I don't know how far he's going. Anyway, let's go. Now I'm starting to think he's thinking, talking about a different chance, but because he's going to mention some here, but let's go.

Uh, you do me and the verb is key. Yeah. Many causes.

Okay. And you have to cut it short to linguistic compensations or compensation for the D. If it were S.

Okay. So you got to say, you got to cut your throat. And that makes it active tense.

Okay. Special tense, active tense. So do many causes get a single, but a single result, just a single result.

Okay. Okay. Okay.

If you say it does, right, if you say many causes can produce a single result. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
And the parts of the experience of the.

[Speaker 1]
Let's consider the. Well, let's consider the aspect of the awareness of, of what you're seeing, which is experience. The experience of seeing I'm seeing that.

Okay. Consider I'm seeing. Okay.

And let's consider the aspect or the element element. These are elements of a perception. Number one, an experience.

First element. Second, the object is appearing in the mind. The object is appearing in the mind.

Second kind of element going on. We got two elements so far. There's an experience and there's an appearance of the object in the mind.

Okay. And there's going to be another cha. You'll research it, but then new.

So you don't know research. Okay. Research means to isolate.

Okay. To isolate. Okay.

It's a difficult word. Research means cut into types. Ri and Rick are the same.

R.I.S and R.I.G.S are the same thing.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
So research means to. To distinguish. Okay.

So there and furthermore, there's an ability of the mind new. There's an element where the mind has the ability to isolate the object from the other things in the world. Okay.

Got it. So there's three things going on as a result of one cause. Okay.

You looked at a coffee cup. What happened? Number one, you had a feeling of experiencing something.

Number two, you had coffee cup in your mind. Number three, you didn't have other things in your mind. You isolated this object.

Three results of a single cause. Okay. These three elements of perception happening in the second moment.

Got it. He was supposed to be talking about. Yeah.

Many to one.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Of these three elements in an active perception. Okay. Of these three.

Okay. Sombra. And by the way, those might be the can soon.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Sorry about that. Then only one of them of the three. Then only one of the three.

Is must be the long day. And by the way, for some reason, they pre nasal it. Long day.

Okay. They don't say lock J. They say lung J.

What is lock J?

[Speaker 2]
10,000.

[Speaker 1]
The aftermath. The thing. The imprint.

What's it literally mean? The press. Oh, it has like water right?

No, no, no.

[Speaker 2]
Your hand.

[Speaker 1]
If you press, press on like an indent or something. It's like that thing in Hollywood.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Is it your feet? That's a real lock J.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
And the existence of the Abhidharma in the world is a lock J of the Buddhas. Having been here for 81 years. It's the.

It's like a footprint. It proves he was here. So we call it a lock J.

We call it. It's the footprint of the Buddha. Nobody gets the money.

Okay. I get the money. Okay.

So lung J. Kung J. There's a famous Nagarjuna thing where.

If you perceive emptiness directly. All the ocean of noble things becomes the amount of water in a Kung J of a cow. The footprint of a cow.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
The footprint in the mud of a cow with some water at the bottom. You reduce all the noble things in the world from an ocean to the Kung J. The water in a Kung J.

Okay. Got it. So anyway.

Now, Nate. Why is it relevant here? The three.

The three conditions. Factors in a visual perception. Meek shake against some K.

The mixture. I'm sorry. This is a indication that the three cans were there.

Okay. It's the footprint left by the cancer. By the three causes.

By the three conditions. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
What is the footprint of the three? I don't know.

[Speaker 1]
Maybe the mixture. Maybe the mixture. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
That's rough.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Something is indicating that the Kansums were there. Something is the footprint left by the Kansum.

Okay. I think it might be mixture. Awareness.

Okay. Tell way. Okay.

Must be. Let's keep going. Let's jump over the parachuters that jumped over the parachute.

Okay. And then we'll go back. I keep promising to go back.

Jason tell way. Make sure he can change. In that case, then the other two features of visual perception would be impossible.

Okay. Or it would have had to come about through no causes at all. What was it trying to prove?

This third one? Many things. I guess you have to treat these three elements as the three conditions as the many causes.

And you have to treat a visual perception as the result. And somehow those three can't create one result.

[Speaker 2]
Which we don't.

[Speaker 1]
And I think he's trying to say, I don't know. Let's go to the fourth one. Then let's cook it for until your next class.

Okay. This is not a bad strategy. Sometimes when you sleep on it, you figure it out.

[Speaker 2]
Yes. Sometimes when I sleep on it, you figure it out.

[Speaker 1]
Because I'm not sleeping. Wow.

[Speaker 2]
How many more minutes do we have?

[Speaker 1]
Let's try. Let's just start it. Okay.

What is the fourth combination?

[Speaker 2]
Many to many. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Go ahead.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. He's giving options. The two nams are option one, option two, option three.

Okay. And he says, if the first one holds true, so the sentence continues, the paragraph continues with, if the first one holds true. So it's got to be three options.

Okay. Talking about three options. Mu shipa gagpa ni, many to many, I'm going to deny.

How? She ma tapa tar, she ma tapa tar, she ma tapa tar, she ma tapa tar, she ma tapa tar, she As I have just explained. I'm going to do pieces, because I don't understand the whole yet.

She ma tapa tar, as I just explained. mik she kyi ten gi, kyan sum, gyi shakpe kye pa sum. Three differences which apply to visual consciousness, which are established through the three conditions.

Okay. Three qualities. Kye pa sum.

Three qualities of the perception, visual perception, which are brought about by three conditions. Now he's talking about three qualities of the visual perception that are triggered by three conditions of the cause, which is many-to-many. So three qualities of the resulting awareness that I'm seeing, that has three qualities and they are triggered by the three conditions, many-to-many.

If this is produced in an ultimate way, from its own side, by the convening here, tsok, by the convening of the three conditions coming together, dune chepay chuh in Duche, by the convening, convergence. Who said that? I should give you some money, but I'm not going to.

If it's produced that way, then mek she kyi khyen sung kyi shab pay lang che sumpa de, then the footprint left by the three conditions, which triggered the visual consciousness, then the footprints, the three footprints left by the three conditions which triggered the visual consciousness, sumpa de, den dabar thade me kyang, although they are not ultimately separate from one another, lo la thade pa nangwa tsam, they do appear to the mind as if they were separate. Is that the case?

Or, okay, here's the nam, or is that lo kang la thade pa mi nangwa yin nam, or do they not appear separate to any state of mind at all? He's giving us three choices. Number one, what's the first choice?

lo la thade pa nangwa tsam, they just appear separate to the mind. Second choice, lo kang la thade pa mi nangwa, they didn't appear separate to any state of mind. Third choice, den dabar thade pa yin, ultimately speaking, they are separate.

Three choices. I'll say it again. Three choices.

Is it just that they appear to the mind as separate? A. B.

Is it that they never appear to any state of mind as separate? Or, C. Is it that they are, ultimately speaking, separate?

[Speaker 2]
Now, is he doing ultimate here, or is he doing, like, in fact? Like, we wouldn't think about nature of existence here, but, like, they really, they are separate.

[Speaker 1]
They just appear this way.

[Speaker 2]
They are separate. Not like, a lack of a self-nature. He means ultimate.

He does. Ultimate as compared to just appearing to a state of mind.

[Speaker 1]
Well, don't forget he said he's going to, sorry.

[Speaker 2]
Svatantrika. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
He said he's doing svatantrika way. So, ultimate to them would mean without a 50% participation of the perception. See what I mean?

50-50 is cool.

[Speaker 2]
Baba Viveka loves to say den dabar. Following Baba Viveka, they love this guy. Bless you.

[Speaker 1]
Sorry, it's just I'm allergic to these reasons.

[Speaker 2]
It's just allergies. Have you ever tried local bee pollen?

[Speaker 1]
I did. I did try it. I've tried everything.

[Speaker 2]
Trust me. Have you tried putting local bee pollen on your nose?

[Speaker 1]
I've tried heavy drugs. They seem to work. Okay.

It's the juniper season. I asked my allergist, should I cut the juniper down outside my window? He said, yeah, and the other 10,000 behind it.

Well, that's nasty. You know, it may be too hard for a footnote. Maybe that's why he said chenduche.

You know, you read another book about it. I don't think it has to be this difficult. Maybe, I don't know.

[Speaker 2]
I think chenduche is like knock yourself out. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
So, let's, I mean, let's finish it as a matter of principle.

[Speaker 2]
And then figuring out how we get into an appendix.

[Speaker 1]
Exactly. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
What this means is this, as it says.

[Speaker 1]
I think it's kind of, you know, in a Buddhist superstitious way, it's auspicious for working on that book if we take a chunk of it now. It's going to plant a seed and somebody in the room is going to work on that book. I really hope someone does work on that book.

I want to work on that book.

[Speaker 2]
Well, if you want it, then we all want it.

[Speaker 1]
Anyway, I don't have time. I don't think, so.