Медитации на пустоту: объяснение шагов к пониманию того, что ничто не является самим собой, занятие 60

[Speaker 2]
So welcome to Emptiness Meditation, as Geshe-la calls it, so we're working on Shunyi Lama's book, which is Light on the Path to Freedom, which is comparing the different Buddhist philosophical schools' idea of the lack of self-nature to things and people.

[Speaker 1]
So we're, and he's doing this for the purpose that we understand precisely what it is, how it is we meditate to see emptiness directly, right?

[Speaker 2]
So he's gone through all the different philosophical schools and we're finally now at the point where we're going to meditate, because now we get the other schools, right? However, the quiz is going to go backwards a little bit because you have had no questions on the last of the philosophical schools, the last of the syllogisms that he presented for the consequence branch of the middle way school. So hold on to, I mean, yeah, here we go.

[Speaker 1]
So what is the fifth of the five syllogisms that Shunyi Lama presents with regard to how the consequence branch establishes the lack of a self-nature to things? And if you could give me the English, the English nickname, and then the Tibetan. Tendrel Kitenzi.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you, Nick. No, they're not. It's just, I just, I should have been more specific.

[Speaker 1]
The Tibetan word for the main name. Okay. Please name and give a brief description of the two types of dependent origination syllogisms.

[Speaker 2]
This is like, this was at the, did we do this at the very beginning of term or the very end of last term? But I felt like I couldn't go on to meditation without giving you some questions regarding the king of reasonings, right? I mean, that would be kind of dumb.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, we'll do it as review. So first is normal. So no matter what existing thing you're talking about, it depends on its parts and those parts depend on their own parts endlessly.

Thus, nothing has a self-nature. So what might you guess the second type would be? An uncommon or a special.

All things are merely products of our imagination. That is, all things depend on our imagination and thus have no self-nature. So bonus, give the Tibetan name for each type.

Gibson knows this.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, here we go into meditation.

[Speaker 1]
Do we need to have Shinae before we begin meditating on emptiness? No, even a raw beginner who has not yet developed single-pointed concentration should meditate on emptiness to sustain the view.

[Speaker 2]
Well, Choney Lama says, actually, and someone else who says, how should we begin? Yeah. So we're going to take a gacha.

[Speaker 1]
An object that seems to have a wrong shin and then reflect. If it could exist, then it would have to be either one or separate. So that's how he suggests we start, one or separate.

We have to come to believe that those are the only two possible choices and then we apply the analysis.

[Speaker 2]
Then we take something like me, something like me, and see whether it has a self-nature of being one or many. And then you can guess what the next one is. Come to believe that those are the only two choices and apply the analysis.

Put the gacha at the center of your mind and keep thinking, it's not that way, it's not that way.

[Speaker 1]
Forsake the idea that things could exist the way they seem. Whatever your object is. It's one of the many proofs he gave us in the book.

Yeah. Sorry.

[Speaker 2]
Maybe. No, it's not one of many. I'll look it up and let you know.

Yes, to depend on. Automatically.

[Speaker 1]
The marriage of appearance and emptiness. Thank you. So that was the last question.

[Speaker 2]
You've passed the course. You're welcome. You can put this on your resume now.

[Speaker 1]
I'll have to do the Buddha thing and speak out of a different part of my body. Could you unzip that please? Okay, just in the last few minutes while she was doing her homework, I decided, we had the dog, the mind coming out of the dog house door, and then the king sits on the throne, and then the rat goes back in his hole, and I went and got a discussion of it for you.

Okay, and there's only one. You did? Really?

[Speaker 2]
Well, I'm not a skilled researcher.

[Speaker 1]
Well, okay, I'm going to use this one. I can't find any other one, and it's good, it's fine. This is a text by Gunthang Kwanjantame Dume, who's a very reliable and good source, okay?

East Tibet, great scholar. Okay, I used him for the Diamond Cutter Mantra, for example. He's good.

And here's his comments on it, and this would make a mini appendix if you're interested. Then can I have a copy of your file so I can take notes of it? Right now, yeah, I can.

What's the date today?

[Speaker 2]
The 20th. Can you help me? I will try, but he starts teaching now.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, I got to turn this. What's going on? Okay.

Oh, I'm not supposed to show you my e-mails. I don't care. I don't think there's any hot ones there, but you can check.

Okay. It's not happening. What's wrong?

I guess I could airdrop it to you. Let's try to airdrop it.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, I got it.

[Speaker 1]
Right-click on it. Yeah. Control-click.

Then what?

[Speaker 2]
Then I'm going to correct.

[Speaker 1]
I got gizpun.

[Speaker 2]
There we go.

[Speaker 1]
Got it?

[Speaker 2]
Something flashed on my screen and disappeared.

[Speaker 1]
Try again. Got it? Yeah?

Okay. Let's do it. It's going to take your whole class.

It's so sexy with the king and the rat and everything. Okay. You okay?

You ready? Okay. Okay, so we are going on a detour to explain the mouse and the rat and the king, or whatever, the dog, the rat and the king.

Okay, here we go.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Don't forget the purpose we got to it in your text was to examine some incorrect ways of examining emptiness, right? That's where we were in your text?

[Speaker 2]
No, we're talking about the state of mind when you're meditating on emptiness. Oh yeah, okay. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, how to meditate on emptiness, right? Okay. So, here's the comments of Kungtang.

SEMS RGYUN NGO TSUL TSUL YANG Now about how we're going to TSUL. Search for... Nice, how we're going to search for the SEMS RGYUN NGO?

The true nature of the mind. Okay, what's the essence of the mind? Here's how to look for the essence of the mind.

Now, her text is called RTAG CI, which is how to meditate on emptiness. And we had all this theory, and then we had proofs for emptiness, and then somebody said, well how do you meditate on that? Especially if you're not an advanced practitioner.

If you don't have... Hello. If you don't have shamatha yet, you're just starting your first retreats, well how are you going to meditate on emptiness?

Okay?

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
And we had a couple of weird ideas, and now we're going to have some... Okay? So, about how you seek the essence of the mind, the true nature of the mind, I admit, YUL MÖG KYANG, I admit, which is always followed by but, okay?

KYANG, okay? I admit that you can find a presentation that sets forth the true state of reality, right? Reality.

According to the RAB BYED, which is the chapter in wisdom, it's called RAB BYED. And if you don't know that, you're in trouble. And I think it's even misspelled here.

So, there is that chapter where you PARIGSHA, you examine, each chapter, 27 chapters in wisdom is called a PARIGSHA. There's a PARIGSHA of DRO'ONG. How do things come and go?

I think it's the second chapter, yeah. So, how do you investigate? So he says, look, I admit that Nagarjuna himself in wisdom, in the second chapter, talks about coming and going.

So therefore, that must be a valid method of exploring emptiness, if Nagarjuna did it, okay? He says, look, I admit there is such a presentation.

[Speaker 2]
But, um, Yeah, but, that chapter was mainly talking about coming and going with your feet, right?

[Speaker 1]
Remember? The parts of your foot and all that. So he says, look, if we're not looking into the physical things, GZUGS CAN GYI DNGOS PO CHOG GZHAN YI GZHAN DU GRO How do they go from one place to another?

CHOG GZHAN YI GZHAN DU GRO And how do they come? If you take that way that that happens, the way that that happens, and you try to apply it to mind, TSUL LOGS MIN That's not how you're going to find the nature of the mind. Okay?

Who's talking? GUNG DANG And he's saying, look, I admit that Nagarjuna talked about coming and going physically, but if you think you're going to apply that to the mind, that's not going to work out. Okay?

By the way, what was the response to it by your author? Did he say it was completely stupid, or what did he say? What was his response to the king and the rat and all that?

Here, right here. Here. CHUNG MI MTHE means, it's a bit off.

That's the first time he said a bit. You know, everybody else was, that's crazy. But when he gets to this one, he's saying, look, it's not bad, but it's not perfect.

Okay? It's not a perfect way to investigate the emptiness of the mind, to check where did it come from, where does it stand, where does it go? As we did in Nagarjuna's second chapter with physical going, it doesn't quite work out.

He's being gentle with the guy. He says it's a pretty good approach, but it's not perfect. So, DE MA YIN PAR, so if we're not going to do it like Nagarjuna did it, and we're going to look into where he talked about physical things, suk chen, physical entities, how they went from one place to another, and how they came from one place to another, and you think you're going to take that system and apply it to the mind, SEMS DI, oh, DANG PO GANG NAS DBONG, well, where did the mind come from in the beginning? BAR DU GANG DU GNAS, and in the interim, where does it stay? THA MA GANG DU DRO, and in the end, where does it go?

GSOL BAR BYED KYANG, you can investigate that, you can look into that question, but, that's not BDAG DUN GSOL BA'I LUGS MIN, that's not how you find the thing that was given the name, or given the mental picture, that's not how you investigate that. When you are trying to establish BSTAN LA BAB DU, when you're trying to establish, okay, LTA BA, correct view, so that's not where you should go if you're going to try to establish what's the view of emptiness. Investigating the mind, where did the mind come from, where does the mind stay, where does the mind go in the end, it's nice, but it's not the best way to handle it.

Then he gives his reasons, let me clean this up for you a little bit. Okay, go.

[Speaker 2]
DE GANG SDUG BSNGAL MA NYED PA MTSAN GYIS DGAG BYA'I PHRAG PAR MIN GYUR TE SKYE DRUB THAMS CAD KHYEN PAS DAG PHYI CHEN MO LAS

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and then, just because you don't find anything at that point, when you're looking where does the mind come from, where does the mind stay, where does the mind go in the end, just because you don't find any place where it came from, or where it stays, or where it goes, that alone, MTSAN GYIS, doesn't cake the DGAG BYA'. It's not going to stop your self-existent, your picture of a self-existent thing.

It's not going to stop the husband, it's not my fault. Checking where your mind came from, where it's going, where it is now, is not enough to overcome your belief in the husband, the I-didn't-do-anything husband. It's not enough.

And he's going to prove it with LUNG. SKYE DRUB Oh, sorry, to quote the DAG PHYI CHEN MO, the great book on emptiness meditations, by the omniscient SKYE DRUB. Which is probably MTSAN GYIS CHEN MO.

Okay, but I couldn't find this exact wording in a quick search. Probably if I searched it for a few minutes I could find it. But let's just stay with this.

Okay, there's something wrong with it. Maybe he hasn't quoted it quite perfectly or something, I don't know. Okay, here we go.

But anyway, it's not going to be far off. Here we go. Chokpa.

Okay, SEMS SKYE GCIG PHYI MA, latter instance of mental, of the mind. NGAR MA SKYE, Okay, which haven't started yet. Okay, which haven't started yet.

But which are SKYE BA LA SNGON DU CHOG PA or SNGON PAR CHOG PA. Yeah, they're about to happen. They're approaching reality, okay.

Yeah, they're just about to happen. Those moments of mind which didn't exist before and are about to happen. NEN GYI BDAG ZHIG NAS TSUL GYI LTAR BYUNG BAR Well, where did they come from?

What... Can you say they come from this kind of place? And how did they happen?

TSUL GYI LTAR BYUNG BAR Can you say they come from this kind of place? And can you say they happen in this kind of manner? Well, like what?

GYIS TZANG NAS BYUNG BAR GYIS TZANG NAS BYUNG BAR Like a dog, like a dog leaving its nest, its dog house. Walking out of its dog house. So, we're talking about states of mind that didn't exist yet and then they come into existence.

It's like a dog popping out of his dog house.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, then...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, then once states of mind have arisen, and until such time as they stop, while they are in existence, you're thinking presently, where do they stay? And how do they stay? Oh, it's like a king who plops down on his throne.

DEN THOG means ... this talk doesn't mean to carry like we had yesterday with a sword, this is without a nest, so it means who is in the act of sitting on his cushion, yeah okay, so that's mind in the present moment, it's here, it's sitting here, we were trying to find some deeper meaning of the king thing and there isn't any, he's just there you know, it's not like the fact that he's a king is important or different from the dog and the rat okay, seems like, although maybe the Buddha said the mind is the king or something about that, okay go ahead, sem kye chik ...

[Speaker 2]
sem kye chik nga ma nam gak ne, gang du ngro way ne dang dro su chiwa kung du njuk pa ta bui ngro tsung sem ru chen ma yinpe tan yin pan yin duang su shik

[Speaker 1]
yeah and then once those previous moments of mind have stopped okay, have stopped, well then where does the mind go, what place does it go to, and how does it go there, it's like a mouse or a rat that pops back into its kung, which is a hole okay, dro tsun ni, sem ru chen ma yinpe, because the mind is not physical, doesn't have a body okay, yinpe, tan yin duang su shik gi nyepar gyur, even in a nominal sense, who could ever find it okay, it's going okay, therefore that must be emptiness okay, not finding something must be emptiness, oops, aya, okay go, dey tabu,

[Speaker 2]
dey tabu man ngey pak tsang kyi, sem tak na, kye ngak ne sung tang dro wa ngey min te,

[Speaker 1]
yeah just that kind of not finding, the mind, because it's not physical and it slips around, doesn't equal an emptiness meditation okay, being sensitive to the fleeting nature of the mind, and how hard it is to nail it down, is not to examine its emptiness, although of course they're related okay, so dey tabu man ngey pak tsang kyi, just not finding the mind in that sense, because it slips into its hole, and it pops out of its dog hole, sem tak ne, if you examine the mind in that sense, you won't be able to ascertain that it is devoid of starting, stopping, and staying, you're just observing how fleeting it is, and how ephemeral it is, but that's not its emptiness, you haven't established its emptiness, you just established that it's sneaky, it just comes and goes quickly, but that's not its emptiness okay, yeah and he has a few more things to say about it, okay please read. dey tsang shi druk kyang, if that's all you're able to prove is that the mind comes and goes quickly, almost imperceptibly, like a mouse poking back into its hole, rang druk tu le, in the moment that the mind has first occurred okay, in the moment that the mind has first occurred, that it doesn't reside or stay into the second moment okay, which is its impermanence, not its emptiness, this is an exploration of the mind's impermanence, this is not an exploration of the mind's emptiness okay, tu nyipa mi dupa, that it never stays into a second moment in the present right, shik ney drowa, and then it goes on okay, rang du su neypa dang, that it doesn't stay even in its own, that how it stays in its own moment of time, and how it happens anew, where it wasn't before, because its causes and conditions have convened okay, jungway kyen gang ne sun, this starting, this stopping, and this remaining, the tokpa, the suspicion, or the wrong idea, that these three things could happen by some nature of their own, mi chok, yeah it doesn't stop that state of mind okay, exploring the subtle impermanence of the mind, how fast it comes and goes, doesn't address your feeling that it's coming from its own side okay, it doesn't prevent the suspicion that it does exist through some nature of its own, and you have to say some, if you say through its own nature, it's a misleading translation, because some means it in theoretical, through some supposed nature of its own, it's a much sweeter translation, much more powerful okay, got it? So, close but no cigar, as Stanley would say, you know it's cool to see how your mind pops into existence from nowhere, it's cool to watch how it pops out of existence into nowhere, but that nowhere is not emptiness okay, got it? You're just watching subtle impermanence or something, yay, and yeah, so then he said, here's his comment on this, oh by the way, we stopped here, let's do your whole sentence here.

YANG KA'CIG, this is, I'm going back to your text, search for

[Speaker 2]
17, yeah it is above that, look in the doghouse, not in the rat hole, yeah go

[Speaker 1]
please, okay good, so okay, here's another idea people come up with, by the way, this is not doghouse, this is dog, from the doghouse, and an understood dog okay, it's GYIS KHA MA PA'A SANGS RGYAS NANG NAS, okay all right, just you know, but you would translate that way anyway, so we can say that when a dog, we can say that in the beginning, as opposed to BAR DU, as opposed to THAR somewhere here, yeah here, THAR okay, so those three are opposite, how do you say, they are opposed to each other, let's, well let's look at the mind in the beginning, let's look at the mind in the BAR DU, in the interim, and let's look at the state of the mind THAR at the end, so whatever, however you translate this, he has a parallelism that he wanted to establish, in the beginning, ba ba ba, in the middle, ba ba ba, and then at the end, ba ba ba, so your English sentences should go like that, and it'd be more powerful, so in the beginning, the dog pops out of its doghouse, in the same way the mind comes from nowhere, okay, GANG NAS KYANG MANG, the mind comes out of nowhere, comes out of emptiness, see he's trying to say that's emptiness, okay got it?

Just pops out of nowhere, then even while the mind is, even while you're thinking actively, you're thinking, it's like King sitting on his ass, sorry, his cushion okay, but in a deeper sense, he's not staying anywhere, so the mind doesn't stay, the mind doesn't come, the mind comes out of emptiness, the mind sits in emptiness, and then at the end, in the next instant, like a rat who pops back into its hole, the mind, GANG DU'ANG MIN DRUL, the mind doesn't go anywhere, the mind is SHI MED PA, the mind is RTZOGS BRAL, the mind has no foundation, the mind is completely devoid of any root, and if you realize that, you will understand that things don't have any nature of their own, and they say that's a SEMS KYI GNAS LUGS BSGOM PA, that's to meditate on the true nature of the mind, okay? NYAM DU, thinking like that, oh the mind came from nowhere, oh the mind goes nowhere, that must be ultimate reality, okay?

It sounds cool, but it's no cigar, okay? And you hear that kind of stuff constantly, yeah, okay? Yeah, and then he says, please read, DE YANG, yeah, yeah, and he says, you know, it's not crazy, and it's not terrible, but it's a little bit off.

BYUNG MI STE, it's a little bit off, because you're exploring the mind as if it were a physical thing, and GUNG THONG said, because Nagarjuna did that, you're trying to do what, you're trying to repeat what Nagarjuna did with physical walking and coming, and he says it doesn't quite work, okay? GZUGS CAN GZHIN DU, YOD PA, you're looking for its true nature, RTZOGS, you're using a method to look for its true nature, where you're treating it as if it were physical, okay? And then you can say, that proves it has no nature of its own, but listen, it doesn't give us a certainty, it doesn't elicit in us a NGES PA, a correct perception of emptiness, it doesn't give us the hundred percent certainty ascertainment of emptiness, it's nice, it flirts with emptiness, but it's not, it's not the real thing.

Okay, got it? That's a very, that's a very, I mean just that part of your book will help many, many people, okay? Just that one paragraph of your book will help many people.

How you treat, by the way, according to Gungtang, it's coming from another author, this discussion is coming from another author, I can't find it except for the reference to it by Gungtang, who, he's like 1700s, oh sorry, he's late, but he seems to attribute it to Kedrup Je, which would probably be in the DONG CHEN CHEN MO, and probably if I looked for it for a few more minutes I could find it, but I don't have time right now, I don't want to do it during your class, but I'll find it for you. It'd be better to have the original than Gungtang's gloss of it, or maybe he's misquoting it, or we don't know, or it wasn't input correctly on our side, and we can't find it, but you know, it's all possible. Okay, please go ahead.

DER THAO? Yeah, this is our, we're saying, look it doesn't quite work, and they say DER THAO? Really, it doesn't quite work, we're going to tell you why.

Bye you guys, thank you for coming, we love you, please keep your crane going, okay? Stanley wants to borrow your Tesla. 125 okay?

He bought it in the US and he shipped it there. Over there it's 250 or something, so he was smart, he did a cool thing. Anyway, he's a, he worked for the for the finance minister of the country, he was a high government official, yeah, now he has his own business.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, DER THAO TSUL DE ...

[Speaker 1]
DER THAO TSUL DE, you can use that kind of a way of talking about it, or looking into it, where you realize that the mind is devoid of starting, staying, stopping, and staying as a physical thing. Okay, but that's not going to enable you, MI NUS, to realize correctly, understood right, that the mind has no nature of its own. Okay, and I thought, I don't know, many of these proofs of emptiness are treated by the first Panchen Lama in the Angel-Devil poem, so it might be nice just to refer to it, I don't know.

I can find that one for you in the Angel-Devil poem, and it might be cool. Okay, go ahead. 50 bucks, I'm in a good mood.

Good, keep going, keep wandering around, and it's going to come out, I can hear it. Good, yeah, they would see emptiness directly. Who?

The people who think that because things work, they have a nature of their own. Fire burns your hand, it must have heat in it. Okay, aspirin sometimes takes away a headache, there must be an active ingredient that's not you, it's not your seeds.

Okay, they think if something works, if gasoline moves a car, there must be something inside the gasoline. It can't be coming from you. If gasoline moves a car, there must be something in gasoline that works.

Functionality is innate, which is a wrong view, but if we followed your way of thinking about the rat and stuff, then those guys would see emptiness. So how that ties together, you know, your graduate student can write a thesis about it. Okay, in the commentarial period, we're in the classical period.

We get to translate the originals, then those blenderschmucks have to write theses about these little points. Yay! Okay, I know you guys are looking at me now and we still value you.

Okay, moreover, yeah, it's not quite correct what you're saying, okay, because the way in which you seek out tsul, how starting, stopping, and staying don't have any nature of their own, it's not that way anyway. If you were following Nagarjuna, you know, still your rat thing doesn't work out. Okay, listen, it doesn't work out for mind because mind's not physical.

You're describing a physical process, but even if it did work out, you're still wrong, because that's not what Nagarjuna meant when he said things don't start, things don't stop, things don't stay. That wasn't his point, that they're slippery or something, you know, like a rat rushing back to its hole. Anyway, if you weren't misapplying a logic meant for physical things to a mental thing, you'd still be wrong, because that ain't how Nagarjuna presented starting, stopping, and staying.

Okay, and now he's going to tell them why. Let's go to the end, okay? And that's true, that you anyway, you aren't doing it right, because if you were, let's go to the end, you would have to be examining, and I'll go up to the top.

You really want to know how to do it? Tsul tsul, you want to look for your self-existent mind? SEMS SNGAR MED SAR DU RANG BZHIN GYI MI KHYER BA, you should be looking into why a state of mind which didn't exist before can freshly start, through some nature of its own.

Okay, and then you should be looking into how the mind doesn't stay in its own slice of time, the present time, through any nature of its own, and then you should be investigating why it goes, in the second moment of its existence, okay, in the second millisecond of its existence, it goes into the second moment and stops, but not through any nature of its own. That's what you should be looking into, that's what you should be at. Those are the questions you should be asking, not that it goes so fast and it comes so fast and stays so fast, that's not the point, that's impermanence, okay.

Yeah, now we get another stupid idea, yay! These are lots of guys' opinions about how you should meditate on emptiness after you study the classic proofs. This is a clear light argument, you know, they misunderstood the meaning of clear light.

Very common, the first Panchen Lama talks about it a lot, okay. So, kha chik, sem drup tsam ne, when the mind comes into existence through nothing else than it coming into existence, it takes on an aspect of clarity, of clearness, clear light or something like that, okay. So, its nature as it starts is invisibility, okay.

Well, you know, I'd make it sound mystical, just do a mona thing, go over there at a class in Tilaka Paki, translate it there, okay. And if you investigate and look into carefully this sheer clarity, sheer clear light, okay. Wow, you're gonna find it doesn't have any kadok or yid!

It doesn't have any colors! It doesn't have any shape! Sorry, do you know?

Okay, tongpa, when it's clear, it's empty. When it's empty, it's clear. Therefore, emptiness and clarity are indivisible.

That should be your meditation, and if you do that, you are meditating on the true nature of things, okay, got it? Clear light thing, some kind of physical clear light, okay. He just gives it a serwa, and then he ...

now, I've split the serwas and the yangmites just because they got kind of long, and I think it'd be good to pause between them. Okay, here's where we kick his butt about that.

[Speaker 2]
Go ahead.

[Speaker 1]
That's incorrect, because when you investigate the invisible, really, nature of the mind, you are just looking into the deceptive nature of the mind, the relative nature of the mind. You are not investigating its ultimate nature. The mind, tsel shing rigpa, right?

Invisible and aware. Definition of the mind. So, don't get caught up on how invisible it is.

That's not its ultimate nature. That's just the quality of the mind, okay? But it's been a huge thing in Tibet.

Many, many schools are saying that. Okay, go ahead.

[Speaker 2]
You know, tsel shing ... oh, sorry. Tsel shing rigpa toppa sam yang ne luk gong par thawang yul.

If it were that way ...

[Speaker 1]
Tsel shing rigpa toppa ... Oh, that's misspelled.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, well, I was like, what the ...

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
That's how I sit there in my house.

[Speaker 2]
I'm like ... Something's wrong.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Okay, in that case, if you just understood the definition of mind, which is clear and aware, then you would be meditating on the ultimate nature of the mind. You would have to be meditating on the ultimate nature of the mind.

Man, that was a close one. It's like trying ... it's like, unless you've got to touch the collar of the horse, or the horse is the toucher.

Stanley deceived me.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, go.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, okay, when you watch your mind have thoughts, okay, and kye chik nga ma chi, kye ma tha, and they jump from moment to moment, okay, and right after an instant of mind has occurred, you gaze nakedly, cher kyi, you look into the raw reality of mind moving from instant to instant, and then suddenly the mind disappears. Yel tu drul, that's a meditation on the ultimate nature, okay. Now in the First Mentioned Lama has a lot of fun with these guys, it's like, oh yeah, that's a meaning, your mind is impermanent, whoo, you know.

It disappears. Rang, kama, yel tu drul. It just fades away into nothingness, okay.

Yel means to fade away into nothing, okay. Yel tu drul means to fade away into nothing, okay. Oh, that's ...

and then we're gonna pick on him later, we'll punch him some more when we come back. Just stay there. Are we out of time?

Are we not out of time? Oh, go, go, quick, quick. By the way, you guys are speeding up, and I don't mind, let's do it, we can do more books.

Yeah, that's also wrong, because the only thing you have understood, sampa tsam, the only thing you've understood is how things don't stay from moment to moment. In successive instance, the mind cannot stay into the second moment of its existence, the mind never stays into the second moment of its existence. That's all you've understood.

You are not, you have not seen the meaning of the true nature of things. That's not seeing the meaning of the true nature of things. You're just watching the impermanence of the mind.

It's not even subtle impermanence, frankly, it's just instantaneous impermanence, okay. Here's, we had yesterday, Gomi Chupa for $50. Here is Ko Chupa, which is what?

Can't stand in, can't stand in, okay. So according to you, watching how the mind is kye chik ma, okay, don't say kye chik ma tong, say kye chik ma, read it that way, kye chik ma, seeing that the mind is something of an instant, seeing that the mind is something of an instant, seeing that the mind is something of an instant would also be, could stand in for, could substitute for seeing the true nature of the mind. Realizing that the mind is something of an instant, which is the ma here.

Don't take it as a negative. Right? kye chik ma chik gi chik gi.

Seeing that the mind only lasts for an instant would have to be equivalent to seeing the true nature of the mind. There's a nice use of kochupa in its positive sense. Yeah.

We moved that, we boogied on that, on that text.

[Speaker 2]
She was afraid, she was afraid I was closing in on her, so she moved on. I didn't want to end with a wrong idea.

[Speaker 1]
But I was hoping you'd get to it. We're very close.

[Speaker 2]
How many pages do you have left?