Медитации на пустоту: объяснение шагов к пониманию того, что ничто не является самим собой, занятие 57

[Speaker 1]
Okay, so I apologize again that I had to put two quizzes for two classes at one time. So just to remind you, this text we've gotten to the point where we are, Choney Lama is presenting to us the five great reasonings used by Prasangika to show that nothing has a nature of its own, okay, and we started with other reasons before. We ended last term having just begun the discussion of the king of reasonings, right, the dependent origination being used to prove that.

So, our first class was inching a little bit further into that reason, and then it was the second class when we took the step back to look at, oh, Choney Lama ended his little brief discussion about mushi kye, the denial of, yeah, using the four possibilities to show that things don't start, right, thank you.

[Speaker 2]
Not right now. In the grander now.

[Speaker 1]
I know, I know, I know.

[Speaker 2]
It is now allowed. I just came out of logic, give me a break.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, so what are both the incorrect and the correct ways of translating this phrase?

[Speaker 2]
Okay, purple elephants are pink. That's definitely incorrect.

[Speaker 1]
No, oh, that is one incorrect way, but if you were a translator, if you were translating this phrase into English, what are two, thank you for making me clarify, what are the incorrect and correct ways of translating? Everything does not, yeah, using the everything and the not, everything doesn't have its own nature.

[Speaker 2]
Everything, right, yeah, everything is its, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
And then the correct way, nothing is naturally, okay, so what are the two important parts of the consequent branch description of dependent origination? Thank you. So, ming, the word used to refer to an object, and then da, the term or expression, the mental image of an object.

Thank you for foreshadowing the next question. Which of these two is more important and why? First talk about why ming, like what role ming is in, and then talk about da.

Oh, so if it doesn't matter, why is it included? No, seriously.

[Speaker 2]
It matters in some way. Oh, really, how? Because you can always change names and it doesn't change the thing.

Okay, I like that. Okay, now tell me about da.

[Speaker 1]
It's the actual image that comes out of the seed, which then becomes a thing you see, based upon your karmic seeds. Wow. So, the thing I like about ming is that it's relatively loosely connected, like in Romeo and Juliet.

What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. So Romeo would were he not Romeo called.

[Speaker 2]
Da, yeah, he would smell good. Of course he smells good. There's the phenomes going on or whatever, pheromones, whatever they are.

[Speaker 1]
Da, it is our experience of the object, right? And it's the result of previous actions. So da explains how it is we create our world, why it is we experience what we experience.

And so if we understand the idea that nothing could exist independently of names and expressions, we reach the meaning of the lack of a self nature in the consequent branch of the middle way. There we go, meditate, man.

[Speaker 2]
I suppose tendril has no English equivalent. Dharma too. And tumiche cannot be expressed in English.

[Speaker 1]
Something which exists that does not come about by the convening of causes and conditions. Yeah. Existing thing.

That's right. This is the new addendum. And similarly with dunang mundu.

That thing that's right in front of you. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Nice. Okay, so instead of an image, I had some assistance.

[Speaker 1]
Can you do a song? Okay, wait, wait, wait, you guys missed it. Okay.

Don't look, don't look, don't look. Okay, now, wait, what was that? It's right in front of your eyes.

Just a quick question. Is this always in front of your eyes? Or does this mean, like, bringing, like, also bringing your meditation?

Dukkhi nangar lama, khorlo dompa, yab yunla tsa, gukkhi lama, yidam chosam khandu sumedho, gukwana indu bhaya. Dukkhi nangar. The sadhana starts with dukkhi nangar.

A little bit. Yeah, that's it. It can be either one, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Sorry. Please, place your eyes upon the screen and your ears upon the screen.

Upon the screen.

[Speaker 1]
Boma constrictor swallowed the crane whole, and now chewing. I understand. I pondered this deeply.

And then, I made my first drawing. Oh, this is, uh... I showed my master pronouns and asked if the drawing frightened him.

Frightened? Why should anyone be frightened of a hat? Some of the little prints, right?

[Speaker 2]
Whoa.

[Speaker 1]
Dads have to know these things.

[Speaker 2]
Wow.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. I think it's how they learn English. They learn English.

So this is majorly thanks to Venerable Sunam that that happened. Wow. Thank you.

She added the low voice for him? Yeah, she's a master. So now, we're going on to our step back into the land of Mushikye.

Mushikye. So Chini Lama says that if we want to prove that the three relationships hold for the proof that denies starting through four permutations, we should look somewhere else. Where does Khedrup Jey suggest we look?

Do you remember? We had this whole thing about, oh, what order did they put it? He just says to look elsewhere.

Does he say where to look? Khedrup Jey.

[Speaker 2]
Khedrup Jey said.

[Speaker 1]
Khedrup Jey says that we should look in his Cikdungja. Yeah. So in Great Interlude on Emptiness, he says, basically, we could just use the one that's used for Cikdungja.

[Speaker 2]
Now, how does Khedrup Jey refute the possibility that one thing could cause a singular result? Yeah, he refuted it.

[Speaker 1]
It was a two-parter?

[Speaker 2]
That makes sense.

[Speaker 1]
Something to do with...

[Speaker 2]
Oh, I consciousness.

[Speaker 1]
That's maybe one part.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, that's right, yeah. Because the I sense power has to cause both.

[Speaker 1]
No, he raises a question.

[Speaker 2]
Right, well, then does that mean that the I sense power cannot cause both the next moment of the I sense power and also the I sense awareness that would follow from it? Right.

[Speaker 1]
Does a single instance of the I sense power cause only a second instance of the I sense power? Does it create a visual awareness?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Not and visual awareness. You can tell I edited to add visual.

[Speaker 2]
What absurd consequence does Khedrup Jey reveal? Blind. Everybody's blind.

Yeah, okay, but in two ways, right? Yeah. Right.

If we only create an awareness of the I sense power.

[Speaker 1]
If you only create another sense power, then you have no awareness of it, you're blind. The opposite. Then you create the power.

Then the second instance, instant, you're blind.

[Speaker 2]
Optic nervous. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Or permutation. Denying the four possibilities. Cutting the class.

[Speaker 2]
Literally.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Isolate. An impression or imprint or footprint or handprint.

[Speaker 2]
One of those things in Hollywood. Very good, thank you so much. It's blind eyes.

Because it's a mannequin. Too much mascara. Oh, sorry.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you for catching that.

[Speaker 2]
You have the plane.

[Speaker 1]
I was going to crash it. Okay. Okay, here's the, you wrote me an email and here's the answer.

So we're discussing different proofs for emptiness in the highest school, right?

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
And we reached one which is called Mushikengo. Which is called denying that things could start in four different combinations. Okay.

What are the four different combinations? One cause cannot make one result. Self-existently.

One many causes cannot make many results. Self-existently. One many causes cannot make one result self-existently.

And one cause cannot make many results self-existently. Four possibilities. Okay, got it?

What would it be to cause something self-existently in the kitchen for $50?

[Speaker 2]
It would be for the husband to be yelling because of traffic.

[Speaker 1]
$50. Gosh. Independently of me being in the room.

Okay, it looks like cause and effect, but it's not. Okay, I'll say it again. It looks like because he had a bad traffic coming home in his car, the husband is upset at you.

When you walk in, you don't say anything, right? He starts calling you fan tong, which is rice bucket head. And we actually had dinner in China, and we had a rice bucket came, and Stanley said, ah, we got a rice bucket.

So anyway, yeah, so those are the four. If the husband got mad from the traffic, then you should make sure he has a chauffeur or something, and then your husband would never get mad, right? And if you've ever tried to do that, it doesn't work.

The husband still gets mad. So it's not the bad traffic which is causing his bad mood. You are causing his bad mood.

The bottom line, the ultimate answer is always it's your fault. You made bad seeds when you yelled at your kids. So the reason your husband is angry, it's because of you.

It's always because of you, okay? Every irritating person you ever met in your life was coming from you, okay? Now, with the husband, was it just the traffic, and then he was mad once?

Or was there two days of bad traffic, and he was mad once? Or was there one day of bad traffic, and he got mad twice? Or was it many days of bad traffic, and he got mad many times?

That's Mushi Khengo. That's Mushi Khengo. And none of the above.

None of the above. Got it? Very easy.

If you take it to the kitchen, it's very easy. Got it? Got it?

You okay? Seriously? You're not just nodding.

Okay, okay, okay. I'll say it again. It wasn't one bad traffic that made him mad once.

It wasn't two bad traffics that made him mad once. It wasn't one bad traffic that made him mad once. It wasn't many bad traffics that made him mad many times.

Because the traffic didn't make him mad ever. Because you made him mad. Got it?

That's all. That's Mushi Khengo. Okay, got it?

Now, anytime you give a logic, there's two things you have to check to prove. Three relationships have to be true. Let's take the Japanese restaurant.

We should go there tonight, because I like the food. So, this is a typical at-home argument. Let's take the Japanese restaurant, Choi Chen.

Let's take the Japanese restaurant. We should go there tonight, because I like the food there. That's what the wife will say or the husband will say.

Now, to check if it's correct, easily, to put it easily, you have to check two parts. What? One must be?

Three. Okay, what is it in this case? Does she like the Japanese restaurant?

Half confirmation. Half reason confirmed. What's the second half?

[Speaker 2]
If three, then two.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's woman's logic. If she likes the Japanese restaurant, we should go there together. Okay, got it?

Yeah, you can use it. When you teach it, you can use the husband. It's just that those of us who have a wife, it means more.

Okay, if you teach it, you can use the husband.

[Speaker 2]
You said there's been traffic about one instance, so let's do a proof about how one instance...

[Speaker 1]
If the husband says, we should go to the Japanese restaurant... No, no, no, there's obviously traffic. Anyway, no, I'm trying to make it more simple.

Okay, got it? So, one must be three, and if three, then must be two. Let's do it again.

She says, take the Japanese restaurant, we should go there together tonight, because I like the food. So, what's one plus three? No, Japanese restaurant, and she likes the food.

Now, what's if three, then two?

[Speaker 2]
If she likes it, we should go. Happy wife, happy life.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, now, in Tibetan language, this is called... chok chuh, chok chuh. The opening words of Dharmakirti's Pramana Vartaka, chok chuh de che, khyapa yi de che.

Okay, very famous. It's the first line, the first words are the first line. One and three, okay?

It's called chok chuh. What's if three, then two called? Or shortly, khyapa, okay?

Now, with the husband and... Traffic. Our author says, you know, we should check if one is three.

And we should check if three, then two. But you figure it out from someplace else. You go someplace else.

I'm going on. It's just like what I did with Adam this morning. I'm going on.

I don't care if you guys understand or not. That author said that. Now, we are mixed nuts.

We have a high, high standard. We have the best translation group in the whole universe. I checked.

So, we don't put in our translation, you can find it somewhere else, good luck. We actually go and find it for the reader. And we take it from the other book and we put it in our translation.

So, we're doing that right now. We're trying to do the one, three, and we're trying to do the three, two. Now, we found a guy who said, a very famous student of Tsongkhapa, Khedrup Jey, and he said, you know the three, two thing?

If three, then two? About this traffic and the husband? Shandyshe!

You can find that somewhere else. Oh, thanks. That's why we came to you, because the other guy told us the same thing.

It's like you're looking for some kind of thing to buy in the store and they keep sending you to the next store. But, he did explain half. He did explain half.

So, we're going to take that half from him. He explained one and three in a very complicated way, but we like that. He explains one and three.

And then Venerable Utpala found if three, two in our own book. He mentioned it before.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, got it?

[Speaker 1]
He mentioned it for a different proof, but it's supposed to be the same, because this guy says, if you want the three, two thing for the traffic, go look up the three, two thing for the restaurant. It's the same. And we have that in our text already.

So, you're going to supply it from Chonin Lama. The khyapa, the three, two thing. That's in Chonin Lama.

Right here it says, khyapa dupa, oh, if you want to know the three, two thing, we'll go to the old argument we did before. It's the similar, very similar. We'll take it.

Very similar. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, it's irritating.

But he does do a good job on the one, three. And it's complex because there's four possibilities. It's complex because the reason has four possibilities.

One is three is complex because there's four parts to three. One traffic made one upset, two traffics made one upset, one traffic made two upset. We have to go through four possibilities here to confirm one is three.

Got it? And we think we read this already, didn't we? Okay, so we don't have to read it again.

We didn't? Did we read it or we didn't read it? You want to read it?

You want me to read it with you? Let's read it and let's just read it.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, let's start here.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, Chokchur Durbala, if we're going to confirm one is three, Chokchur Deche Khyabayi. Very famous. Then, Muddhambo Nyi Gokpa, the first two possibilities, what were they?

Somebody's keeping track of it, right? One, one, one, the many? Those first two, refuting Gokpa, denying the first two possibilities.

How many of the four possibilities are denied in the proof? All four. Trick question.

I'll say it again. How many possibilities for the husband getting upset are denied in this proof? All of them.

One traffic, one husband upset. Two traffics, one husband upset. One traffic, I don't know.

Got it? Okay, so we're going to, we wish he would have done it, you know, just straightforward, but he doesn't. He says, let's discuss the four with three different cases.

Hungry once, mad once. Traffic once, mad once. His favorite TV show wasn't on, mad once.

He changes the condition three times, okay? For each one, which makes twelve. Okay, got it?

Which is mean. But if you want to impress your readers and get a longer book so you can charge more, you should, you should use this one. I'm just kidding.

Okay. Let's connect it to the three conditions, three conditions. Then I wanted to go to Khyentse, because it was fresh in my mind, because I just did it in Nagarjuna.

But I'm not sure, I forget, I don't think they apply here. I think it's a different three Khyentse. Okay.

I think he tells us. Khyentse Nlagyate. Let's apply it to three different possible reasons why he's not upset, but he looks like he's upset.

He was in traffic, he was hungry, and his favorite TV show was canceled tonight. Okay, got it? Okay, here we go.

And then discuss the four possibilities, which makes twelve possibilities. Okay? Okay, just smile.

Go. Okay, when you look at the cup, your eyeball detects the cup. Okay?

Your eyeball detects the cup. When the eyeball detects the cup, it triggers an awareness of seeing the cup. And so the eyeball detects the cup one second, one millisecond before the mind says, I'm looking at a cup.

Got it? So first there's eye looking at the cup, and then triggers I'm looking at the cup. And there's actually a time gap.

Okay, so the cells at the back of my eyeball, which we know the shape of due to Stanley's text, some flower or something, the cells at the rods and cones in science, they respond to shape and color. So I detect a shape and a color, but I don't think yet. I'm not thinking yet.

I'm seeing a cup. Then that triggers an awareness of seeing. Got it?

Visual awareness. So is it true that one detection by the eye of a coffee cup could create the detection of the next moment? I'm not talking about the awareness.

I'm not talking about the awareness. The detection of brown and round, would that trigger another detection of brown and round in the next millisecond? It always does, yeah, until you look away.

[Speaker 2]
Or if the thing changes.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I'm just saying, if the object doesn't change, then the first instance of looking at brown and round, sorry, of detecting brown and round, causes the second instance of detecting brown and round. Okay, that's all. Got it?

So can we say that one brown and round causes one other thing?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, okay.

[Speaker 1]
Now, does it also trigger an awareness of the brown and round?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, that's all.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, so here it is. Here it is. MIG DBANG GIS, MIG DBANG NYID PA'I KHO NA SKYE, is it the case that the brown and round detection creates the second brown and round detection or is it the case that it just triggers one awareness of brown and round in that moment?

Which one? Either or. What would you say?

Both choices wrong. Did the husband get upset from the traffic or did the husband get upset from being hungry? Both wrong.

Got it? Now, if you say, this is where it gets sexy, if you say that it's only, the only thing that's going on, the only thing that the brown and round detection creates is the second moment of brown and round. It doesn't create your awareness.

It does not. Because only one creates one, right? We're talking about one-to-one.

Okay, so if it only creates the next moment of brown and round, then tham chen long wang.

[Speaker 2]
Then you're blind.

[Speaker 1]
Then the whole world is blind, okay? Because the brown and round isn't triggering an awareness of color. Okay?

The eye detected it, but we don't see it. I don't see it. Okay?

If it's just one-to-one, then choose. You want brown and round the next moment or you want I see brown and round. But you can't have both because only one-to-one.

We're discussing. Is it possible to have one-to-one? Got it?

If it's that the brown and round only creates the next brown and round, then everybody's blind. Okay? Got it?

Because the brown and round doesn't have time to create an awareness of brown and round because it can only create one result. Because you said one thing can only cause one thing. The husband only gets angry from traffic.

Got it? Only gets angry once from one traffic. Got it?

Okay. Okay, I changed my mind. It's still one-to-one.

It's still one-to-one. The brown and round creates my awareness of brown and round, but forget the next moment stuff. Forget the next moment stuff because I want one-to-one.

I want one-to-one. The brown and round creates an awareness of brown and round, but it doesn't create brown and round in the next moment because we can only have one, right? We only can have one.

Okay, then since there's no second brown and round, then still time's very long. Everybody's still blind in the second moment. Okay, because there's no second moment of brown and round because brown and round can only create the awareness of brown and round and brown and round cannot create the brown and round in the next moment because one-to-one.

One cause, one result. That's the first move. One cause, one result.

He only gets angry from traffic and never from me yelling at the kids. Okay, got it? She wants to hold one-to-one.

Got it? Okay, then hunger didn't play a part. Not seeing his favorite TV show didn't play a part.

It was only the traffic is why he got upset today. Okay, got it? He ate a big lunch and they have another show that he ended up liking more.

Okay? Stanley's like, huh?

[Speaker 2]
Okay, good.

[Speaker 1]
Now, listen. I've got to cover the two. We've got to cover the two and Utpal is going to do it for us.

What's the two? By the way, there's a two which refers to a kind of cheese. Who said that?

That's weird. How'd you know that? There's a two which refers to a kind of cheese.

It's not a hard cheese. It's a kind of semi-hard cheese. And it's really stinky and you don't want to try it.

Okay, you'll get sick, I'm telling you. It's got yak hairs in it. So two, hear this two with an apostrophe.

In a flow. Yeah, okay, got it? So if you say it's one-to-one, which one-to-one do you want?

Well, I'm not talking about the one-to-one to the next moment. Now I'm talking about the one-to-one that the brown and round creates an awareness of brown and round. Okay, so let's just have that.

For the first second, you have an awareness of brown and round because one-to-one. But then there's no second moment of the cup because you can only have one result. You said only one result.

So there's no continuation of the cup, two. Got it? Got it?

You guys okay? Yeah. Alright, let's go to the third possibility.

What was the third possibility? How many to how many? You sure?

[Speaker 2]
I'm trusting you.

[Speaker 1]
I'm not keeping track. We just finished the second. We just finished one-to-one.

I'm sorry, he doesn't talk about the second Mu. I'm sorry. Maybe it's going out of order, I hope.

Okay, so we're on the third Mu actually. What was the third Mu?

[Speaker 2]
I'll go back and...

[Speaker 1]
The third one is many to one. Here it is right here. It's many causes, one result.

Okay? Keep it in mind. That's your responsibility.

I have to think about this other thing. Many causes, one result. Okay, here we go.

Mu number three. I'll introduce you to Mr. Mu number three. Okay, go.

Read please. THALO Oh, it doesn't go up or down. It's just a statement.

LANG RJE Yeah, yeah, there's no reason. It's like DOR RJE which is another messed up one. Okay, here we go.

So now we're going to...

[Speaker 2]
We're going to repeat the third permutation.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and just to go back to it, what would it be with the husband?

[Speaker 2]
It would be the fact that he was in many... had traffic, not only in the morning, but in the evening on the way home.

[Speaker 1]
Good, yeah. Or he had traffic... If he just had traffic today, he doesn't usually get upset.

But if it happens twice in a row, he gets upset. If it happens... You can just say two causes.

Any multiple causes. He didn't get upset yesterday from one traffic, but today it repeated, so he finally got upset. Two causes, one result.

Okay, got it? KHO NA SKYE NA If that's the case, then... When the brown and round creates an awareness of brown and round, that awareness of brown and round has three different aspects.

He has a red face, he sounds louder, and this starts to curve. Okay, so three manifestations in the single result of this traffic. Two traffics, right?

Got it? No. The experience has three different aspects.

[Speaker 2]
Well, we have to decide.

[Speaker 1]
It's supposed to be a single result. But normally, when you look at the coffee, there's three shades of mind going on. First one, MYONG BA'I CHA.

Just the awareness, just the experience. Just the experience of coffee. Number one.

My mental, my visual awareness has three flavors to it at the same time. Three flavors at the same time. Number one, there's an experience of life, of awareness.

Okay, I'm not blind, I'm not dead. Something's happening. I'm experiencing something.

Number two, there's an aspect of the object going on. I have brown, but I don't have green or red or yellow. Okay, there's a coloration of the mind.

Got it? So now we got two aspects in the mind which results, okay? I'm having a feeling, and it's a brownish feeling.

It's not a reddish feeling or a yellowish feeling. It's an upset-ish feeling about traffic. So I have a feeling of being upset, and it has a coloration.

I remember certain cars. I remember certain drivers yelling. It has a coloration at the same time.

So we got experience and we got coloration at the same time resulting from the traffic. Got it? You okay?

And there's a cha. Cha means aspect. Anytime you experience something, there's several aspects in a single moment in time.

A, you're aware. B, there's brownish. The mind is brownish.

Okay, got it? Three, what's the example in the Yoga Sutra, by the way?

[Speaker 2]
A jewel against a flower.

[Speaker 1]
You put a sapphire on top of a book and the letters look blue. That's called an aspect. It colors the mind.

The mind is the blue. Then there's another one. There's an aspect of an ability of the mind to isolate the object.

He's not thinking about every car he saw today. So at the same moment, as a result of the traffic, he has three aspects in his mind. Number one, he's experiencing traffic.

Number two, it's traffic-ish from the white car-ish. And number three, the resulting state of mind has the ability to isolate certain cars from other cars. And those happen simultaneously.

There's an aspect of awareness, there's a coloration of the mind, and there's an ability of the mind to discriminate. Here, where is that? Risuche is an idiom, not an idiot, that means to draw distinction.

The guy in the white car pissed me off, the guy in the blue car didn't piss me off. So three aspects of his resulting mind. Now, question.

How many causes do we have? How many results do we have? Good.

Traffic and three results. Experience, coloration, discrimination. Isolation.

Okay, got it? I'm getting there. No, well, he's getting there.

Don't worry. Of those three aspects, I guess he always has only one of them. Okay?

Of those three aspects that every experience has in the universe, his traffic aspect, unfortunately, only has one of the three. Either he has an experience, or he has a coloration, or he has a discrimination. But he can't have all three at once.

Why? Because your example is multiple traffics causing one result. Got it?

Now you got it? I'm saying multiple traffics, okay? It's the second day of traffic.

So according to you, your husband's perceptions are defective. He only has one third of normal people's aspects in his mind when he thinks about the traffic. Either he has the coloration, or he doesn't have the experience, or he has the discrimination, but he doesn't have the coloration.

Why? Because you said multiple traffics can only cause one result. Got it?

By the way, all of them are wrong anyway because it wasn't the traffic. That's the game we're playing. That's the game we're playing.

All of them were wrong in the first place. Even if he had three from one, it's still wrong. And that was Baba Viveka's problem.

He wanted to say self-existently, but we're talking self-existently all four moves. Got it? You guys dizzy yet?

Okay. Yeah, I'm just...

[Speaker 2]
I'm having...

[Speaker 1]
There's two results of one class. Some people are leaving. Okay, yeah, shut up.

Okay, here. Of the three expected aspects, he only gets one. Because you said multiple causes one result.

Got it? By the way, I threw in the traffic because the real point is all four choices are wrong. But he's giving a conventional interpretation.

All right. Then, there are three factors which cause those three shadings of the mind. There's an object which causes the experience.

There's a color. Sorry, what was the second one? Yeah, there was a white color of the car which made a white color of his memory.

And then there was a car isolated which created a... Now, those three aspects or those three feelings when he remembers the traffic are lang je. They are footprints left behind by three different things.

If you see a footprint on the ground, you know, the police say, oh, it was this guy who killed the guy. Deduction. They see the footprint and they say...

So, if your mind has those three aspects, shut up! If those mind has those three aspects, there must have been three different causes. There was the white, there was the honking, there was the car.

And that created... What was the result? That created an awareness, an experience, a coloration and a discrimination.

So, it must be three to three. If the car didn't have a color, he wouldn't have this one, for example. So, if you have these three aspects of the mind, it proves the original experience in traffic must have had three aspects.

Got it? And if you say the result can only be one, then the cause can never be more than one. Then you forget it.

Then you can't say multiple causes, single result. Right? Got it?

Sorry, yeah, multiple causes, single result. You can't say that.

[Speaker 2]
It should be multiple, multiple.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Maybe he's going to come back to it.

[Speaker 2]
Maybe.

[Speaker 1]
We got through that one. Oh, so there must be only one cause of the three footprints. There's three different footprints of three different murderers, and you're telling me it was one guy who changed his shoes three times.

That's the point. Okay. Now, according to you then, the two results you want to leave out must have never happened.

The other two, you want to have one result for three causes. So, mi si means, oh, I guess two are impossible. Like, you can't have an experience, you can't have a coloration, you only have a discrimination, right?

Because you said multiple causes, one result, okay? So, the results, the footprints can only be one. Three causes, only one result, according to you.

Or, he gives them a choice. Or, these two happened, gyu me pa. Yeah, they just pop up.

They just pop up. There was no cause. Which do you want?

The mind only has one aspect, which never happens. Oh, no, he has all three. Okay, then the two happen without a cause.

Two footprints there, without a shoe. You okay? You guys okay?

This is Kirubje. He's amazing. But he's not like Gyatsobje, because you can figure it out.

If you slow down, you can figure it out. Gyatsobje, forget it. He would give all this and not give you the reason.

He's so mean. Okay, we're ready for number four. I hope he's coming back.

I hope he's coming back. Is two the conventional one? What is two?

No, that doesn't work. Okay, let's go. Number four.

This is hard stuff.

[Speaker 2]
That's your man.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, here we go. Okay, here we go. What's the fourth one?

Many to many? By the way, he's following the same order as Choney Lama, which we appreciate, you guys. All right.

It would be complicated if he didn't. Okay, here's the fourth choice. SEMS MA THAG PA LTAR As I just told you, and there's MA THAG PA used a different way.

It's not the KHYEN. It's not the right after effector. SEMS MA THAG PA LTAR As I just explained to you, which is kind of a condescending thing, as I just told you, it means, did you understand it?

Now I have to say it again? GYIS MI GZHAN GYIS BSTEN GYIS When you have that awareness of the brown and round, GYIS MI GZHAN GYIS BSTEN GYIS Is it the case that three different factors have resulted in three different features of the mind? Here, GYIS PA means features of the mind.

So is it three to three? Is that where you want to go? You want to go three to three?

That's the MU ZHIG PA. That's the fourth combination. And the guy's like, yeah, that makes sense.

Three qualities of the traffic created three qualities of his memory of the traffic which upset him, which didn't upset him, right? These are all THAG PA LTAR SEMS GYI RIG PA And hypothetical cases? Very hypothetical.

Very hypothetical. Because it's not possible anyway. All four are not possible because they're happening without your participation, without your seats, which is impossible.

That's why all four are impossible anyway. But let's go through them. You've got to remember that or when it gets to the real one, you're going to be messed up.

Okay, three to three. So was it that the three causes got together and created these three impressions, these three features, DUN DAM PAR from their own side without seats. Are you saying there were three qualities of traffic?

There's three qualities of the traffic which got him upset and they happened without your seats. Okay, got it? DUN DAM PAR, without your seats.

If that's the case, then the three footprints left behind by the three factors, okay, got it? Should not be separate from each other. THAG DE MED But to the mind, they appear as though they are.

Okay, if they were created self-existently, then any one of them should have made all three. And if you see three, you're really only seeing one, but you're crazy. Okay?

If they're self-existent, then when you see those three footprints, even though they are not ultimately separate, your mind thinks they're separate. It must be that. It must be that, okay?

They're all one, but your mind thinks they're separate. Okay, got it? That's got to be multiple to one.

He's got to be talking about multiple to one. Is that what we're talking about? Well, his thought, his reason is that, hmm...

What was the last one?

[Speaker 2]
Multiple to one?

[Speaker 1]
Okay, fine. It doesn't sound like it, no. It sounds like he's not following Choney Lama's order.

We got our order from Choney Lama. This is a different guy. He might do his moves in a different order.

He doesn't mention the moves.

[Speaker 2]
Well, we had three lists that we created the last time. The first one from Choney Lama, one-to-one, many-to-many, many-to-one, one-to-one. The second one from K.W. Ching, many-to-one, many-to-many, many-to-many, one-to-many, one-to-one. And then we said, oh no, it's one-to-one, one-to-many, one-to-many.

[Speaker 1]
Here, let's go through it again. Number one is definitely one-to-one. Got it?

Here, I'm just checking it again. He doesn't cover number two. Number three for him is many causes, one result.

That's clear. And he doesn't say what his number four is. But it seems like he's trying to say many-to-one.

Does that make sense? Or one-to-one?

[Speaker 2]
We just did many-to-one.

[Speaker 1]
And what's number one, one-to-one? Yeah, so it doesn't make sense. I don't know.

I got to work on it. Let me give you the pieces. He's saying that THA DE'I DPA'I RNAM BA TZAM YOD NAM Yeah, he's saying really it was just one, but the mind is hallucinating in seeing three.

That's what he's talking about. They're not separate, but the mind thinks they're separate. Okay, see here?

Ultimately speaking, the results are not multiple. But to the mind, they appear to be multiple. It could be.

Or is it that no matter who looked at it, it wouldn't seem like many?

[Speaker 2]
It would not seem like many. So it must mean the result is one.

[Speaker 1]
Or is it that they are many, ultimately? He gives three choices. So cook it.

But he's not talking about the cause, so we have no way of knowing. We don't know. I suggest we go back to it later.

[Speaker 2]
Luckily, we have two minutes to talk about how we should go back to it later. Is he going on to explain?

[Speaker 1]
Say again? He is. That's why I want to see how much he's explaining.

[Speaker 2]
Because usually we get to his absurd result.

[Speaker 1]
He goes on to explain why each of those three choices is wrong. I'll have you use that one. No, I'm just saying he's still on the same argument.

By the way, here he seems to go on to the yu me kyen go gyur pa. This has to be the end. This should be end of mo shing go.

Because he seems to go to yu me kyen go, which is a different proof of emptiness. All we have to figure out is this part here. Next time.

It's three reasons why the results can't be what they seem to be. For him, that satisfies him. If we're going to be responsible, we should go get some more pieces.

No, that's all. Then he goes on to yu me. That's all he says about the chok choy.

One is three. If the reader wants more, we'll say please refer to other texts.

[Speaker 2]
If they want more about the chok choy. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
We did the khyapa for you. Now we did the chok choy for you. If you don't like our presentation of the chok choy in 12 pages, then go somewhere else.

Ready? Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Maybe we should have just left it. No.