Классика Алмазного огранщика: Верхний Срединный путь — Великие книги мудрости, занятие 5

[Speaker 1]
All right then. We had three and a half objections to saying that the reason Arya Nagarjuna bowed down to Veda's text was to show himself an honorable person and also collect enough good karma to finish his book. The first objector, whose name was Patsapa, he said it wasn't an intended thing.

He had a burst of faith and he bowed down. There was no conscious plan. The second guy said...

He gave a debate and he said, consider the Arya and his spiritual son, I guess they're not holy people because they're hoping for some reward for themselves. They're like business people. Each guy is saying there's no point to the prostitution.

There's no purpose. There's no conscious purpose. They're not doing something.

The first one said he just had a lot of faith and he fell down. He wasn't planning anything. The second one said, I agree he's not planning anything, but it's because if he had planned something, he'd be a businessman.

He'd be a dharma businessman trying to get something for a prostitution. And the third guy said, you're both wrong. Arya Nagarjuna is a high being.

He's wrapped in emptiness all the time. He's not thinking, I want this, I want that, I want that. His mind is like, whoa, whoa, whoa.

Okay, got it? Yeah. And what did the fourth guy say?

Why did I say three and a half? We started with shantang sakpa. What is shantang?

He said the same kind of thing. So we didn't hear anything specific from him. He's just thrown in with this group of bad guys.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Group of three. That's like three and a half guys. He did the same sort of thing.

And we said there was something that you weren't clear on at the end of that. Something about he's using common knowledge but not one that I would accept. Is that what that definitely means at the end of the paragraph before shantang sakpa?

Because I do want to look into it. I would say it's just some kind of common knowledge statement, which is that everybody knows if you're deep within emptiness meditation, you're not going to be in any shape to make plans about what you want your frustration to accomplish. Yeah, accomplish.

Okay. And maybe if we have time we'll look at shenron daka tenzin. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Are you in the right text?

[Speaker 1]
No. Don't scare me.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
I'm teaching the wrong text.

[Speaker 2]
No, no, no. I just saw the numbers.

[Speaker 1]
Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Shenron daka tenzin.

[Speaker 1]
Our response to the first one was, which we finished, is you're completely wrong because when you have a burst of faith and bow down, it's because you believe in the teaching can do something for people and you want that to happen. Faith means you think something great's going to happen to the world if this teaching is taught. If this teacher talks, so you bow down to them in the hopes that they will teach and affect the whole world.

So having a burst of faith is definitely not something without a purpose. It doesn't have a goal in mind. So that was the first guy.

Now we reach the second guy. What did he say again? Holy people don't bow down to get something.

They're not like businessmen. Businessmen only do something to get something. Secondly...

No, that second position. The second type. No, just that second position.

By, I forget his name. It's also wrong. It's also incorrect because...

Because in fact, holy people, who you said never do anything to get something, always do everything to get something, which is to help other people. Ah, Shendun. They're always business people.

No problem. They want to help the world. That's their ulterior motive.

Chao K'ang Che Kyang, no matter what they do, they are looking at it as a way to accomplish the goals of others. Okay? Yeah.

Got it? Yeah, yeah, yeah. The third idea that, you know, he's so deep in the empty notes, he can't think of anything.

Nyam shak tu chom pey chir. Now. Yeah.

Just because the capacity to make plans is wiped out in deep meditation, he admits it. Still, ma kyap. It's not the case.

It's not necessarily the case. It doesn't make the prostration meaningless. He used to tell you, right?

Didn't he? Let's go back up there. I think it was the second guy who used to tell you.

Well, yeah, you're right. So, you know, it's possible that in deep meditation you don't make plans, but that doesn't mean there's no plans to his prostration. Yeah.

Okay? Kyapa machun. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

By the way, kyapa machun means, I agree with your reason, I don't agree with how you interpret it. It's true Nagarjuna was in deep meditation, maybe, but that doesn't prove that he had no plans for his prostration. Okay?

It's true that in a deep state of meditation, you can't be calculating. You can't have a strategy. Why are you in deep meditation?

But that doesn't mean when he goes and makes a prostration, he doesn't have a plan. Okay? So, kyapa machun means, I agree with your reason, he was in deep meditation.

It doesn't mean what you said it means. Okay? That's kyapa machun.

Okay? It says, je top tu champa mi jukte. So, I think he's saying...

So, you tell me. After the meditation... He's counterpoising.

Nyamsak and je top. Yeah, right. Nyamsak is the moment of being in deep meditation and je top is after.

[Speaker 2]
Subsequently, direct perception of emptiness. Okay?

[Speaker 1]
So, while you're in the direct perception of emptiness, it's called nyamsak. Samapati. And after you come out, but you're still sitting down, it's called je top.

The aftermath. Did you have a question? Yeah, I was wondering, nyamsak, if we could put it on one of the nine levels.

No. Well, okay. Generally, nyamsak is a synonym for all meditation.

Because, what's it mean, by the way? If you call it equipoise, what are you balanced between?

[Speaker 2]
Good one.

[Speaker 1]
You're balanced between being sleepy and thinking about what's for dinner. Distraction and sleepiness. Okay?

So, the word for all meditation is balance. I translate nyamjuk as balanced meditation. But, in the discussion of what's happening during tonglam, these are two classical parts of the experience.

One is while you're in the direct perception of emptiness and one is just after that. You're still sitting down, you're still in meditation, but then you're having these experiences like bodhichitta and stuff like that. There are four ayat, 16 aspects.

Okay. So, our guy's being very clever. Okay?

He says, are you talking nyamsak or je top? Uh-huh, okay. Are you talking nyamsak or je top?

If you're talking nyamsak, I say khyama matrim. If you're talking je top, I say dharmaduk. Uh-huh.

It's not true that while you're in the aftermath, you can't think about your goals. Yeah. Yeah.

Miduk, dharmaduk.

[Speaker 2]
That's what the miduk is. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
The state of je top doesn't obviate the capacity to think about plans. So, I say dharmaduk. But, the state of nyamsak does.

But, khyama matrim. Yeah, yeah. This is Gyaltsabje.

Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
He spent his whole life arguing. This is a classic Diamond Mountain debate.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
He'll talk about how cold it is. Can I read the next part?

[Speaker 1]
And, I say dharmaduk regarding je top, regarding the aftermath meditation. You know, when he's come out of emptiness meditation. But, he's still sitting.

Okay? I say dharmaduk because even at that point, he's lending lamchas and he's throwing dorjas. He's taking on good things and giving up bad stuff.

He's doing what he should be doing and he's not doing what he should be doing. Yeah, yeah. We have done those things which we...

Ought to be doing.

[Speaker 2]
We have done those things which we ought not to have done.

[Speaker 1]
And, we have done those things which we ought not to have done. We have left undone those things which we ought to have done. And, we have done those things which we ought not to have done.

And, there is no health in us. This is the Book of Common Prayer. Oh, this is the opposite of that.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, it's beautiful.

[Speaker 1]
During, apparently, during je top, you can say he's back to performing spiritual practices that he should be. And, he's back to avoiding unspiritual practices that he shouldn't be doing, even though he hasn't stood up yet. Okay.

This is still in je top. Still in je top. Okay.

Uh-huh. And, sometimes, Jake, what's the third one? Nam du lam.

Anyway, we'll talk about that. Sorry. There's a third part of the Path of Seeing?

Yeah, that's a long story. Okay, we'll have to study it. Now, we've done it.

De na pakpa yo se chö chen. De na pakpa... Consider the Arya and his spiritual son.

Pakpa yo se chö chen. Yeah, meaning? Consider the Arya and his spiritual son.

[Speaker 2]
Arya Nagarjuna and Aryadeva. Good.

[Speaker 1]
Nagarjuna and Aryadeva. Uh-huh. Thok ten...

Thok ten min par tel. Wait, are you going up or down?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, sorry.

[Speaker 1]
See, they learn their thing when they go in the middle.

[Speaker 2]
I wasn't even thinking about it.

[Speaker 1]
Thok ten min par tel. Tel. Yeah, sarcastic and down.

Listen to the logician. Okay? Thok ten min par tel.

[Speaker 2]
Are you telling me they are like... Unaware? Thok ten min par tel.

[Speaker 1]
Are you telling me they're like unaware spiritualists? Thok ten means realized. Thok ten min par tel.

Thong ten. Heavy Buddhism. Okay.

Thong ten. Thong ten. Are you telling me they're not like realized people?

Uh-huh. Why? Okay.

Gupa-mepa-jawa-lang-ju-pe-chen. Because they engage in activities which are gupa-mepa. Without purpose.

Yeah. Yeah. They do things that have no point.

[Speaker 2]
Uh-huh.

[Speaker 1]
Like whistling aimlessly as you walk down the street. They would call that gupa-mepa-jawa.

[Speaker 2]
Uh-huh.

[Speaker 1]
Like, are you implying that holy people do anything without a specific goal in mind? Uh-huh. Okay?

Because that's what it means to be unspiritually aware. Not spiritually aware. Okay?

Uh-huh. Then we said that a logical statement of syllogism can have three parts or four parts. What's the fourth part?

An example. A classic example. Yeah.

For example, like a konsag mongpa. Konsag mongpa. A businessman.

No. Excuse me. A confused person?

A confused person.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, or dark.

[Speaker 1]
A person who is spiritually dark. In spiritual darkness. It means just a very unaware person.

[Speaker 2]
Uh-huh.

[Speaker 1]
Nowadays in English we say they're very aware. Uh-huh. Spiritually aware.

Conscious. We say conscious. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
They're very conscious.

[Speaker 1]
They respect the environment. They eat organically. We call it conscious nowadays.

This means unconscious. Not a conscious person. Okay.

Literally a dark-minded person. Uh-huh. Literally confused.

Uh-huh. Is this the Selwa from before? Oh, man.

Okay. Okay. Okay, I looked up Selwa, and I spent some time on it.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
I got a GSAL. Oh. Which referred only to the second element, which here would be not aware.

Uh-huh. Did you do something without a goal, you mean? No, just not aware.

Like it's dak che che mitakpe che gu che. Uh-huh. Mitakpe is the juk je che, the quality which we are trying to prove.

Right. The equivalent in a tengyur is called the quality we're trying to disprove. Right.

Which is that they are not aware. Oh.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
I'm sorry. I thought that the quality we're trying to disprove is that they would do something with no goal. Are you telling me they're not conscious?

Ah. Oh, okay. Yeah, I wrote it wrong.

Okay. So the selwa here is not conscious, and it's supposed to not apply to the subject. Got it.

Because it's sarcastic. Are you telling me they're not conscious?

[Speaker 2]
Uh-huh.

[Speaker 1]
So if I got it right, which I don't guarantee, the selwa here is not conscious. Right. Okay.

So what does this mean, though, tawak lang dom? Tawak ke lang, the fact that they must accept that the nagarjuna aryadeva are not, the tawas that are not aware. I see.

Okay. So tawak ke lang means you've said it has to be that way. Uh-huh.

Okay, according to you it has to be that way. So what he's doing with this last sentence is basically summing up the debate in case the reader didn't quite get what he was trying to do with the debate or something like that. Does it refer to only number three, or does it...

Yeah, I'd say he's summarizing all three. Yeah. Let's take nagarjuna aryadeva.

According to these three guys, they must be unaware people because they would do something without a purpose. I could say something like that. They would engage in a meaningless activity.

Yeah. Like just dull-minded people. Like a...

Excuse me, but... What do you call it? Retarded...

What's the popular one?

[Speaker 2]
Mentally challenged. Mentally challenged. I'm sorry.

[Speaker 1]
Something like that, okay? Okay. So I could say something in the transition, like so the consequence is...

Like the consequence you'd have to accept... Yeah, you've accepted this kind of tawa. You've accepted this kind of tawa.

According to you, this is a valid tawa. And also, according to you, they are unconscious people. Uh-huh, right.

Because according to all three of you, they would engage in an activity without a purpose. So you've accepted this kind of thinking already. When you're arguing against me, you're already accepting this kind of thinking.

So I'll use it back on you. They must... Because you're correct, they must be thick-headed people, because they would do something, where according to you, they would engage in an activity that had no point.

So he throws it back to them. You want to go this way? That's fine with me.

So according to what you say, all three of you are asserting that there's no point to the prostration. Yeah. Okay.

Then you have to say that there are people who do something without a purpose, which makes them stupid. Okay? I agree.

They just bow down for no purpose. So I guess they're pretty thick people, right? Pretty stupid people, right?

So he throws it ten years back at them. Okay. Geshe-la, he covered the tamadrup for the kjeto, but did he cover the khyabha-madjung for the nyamsak?

He mentioned it enough. According to him, enough. I agree that it's possible in a deep state of meditation and emptiness you're not calculating the benefits, but that doesn't prove your conclusion that they had no calculations.

And that's as far as he goes on that so far. And that's as far as it goes, yeah. Yeah.

That's... Maybe they'll duke it out further on. By the way, in their original argument, the implication was if you're not in a position to calculate purposes, you're not practicing.

Okay. Doing this and avoiding this. We said, yeah, okay, it's true that they are not calculating at that moment while they're in the direct position of emptiness the consequences of their actions, but that doesn't mean they're not concerned with the consequences of their actions.

Oh, sorry, that they're not concerned with doing the right thing and avoiding the wrong thing. Okay. That was the full argument.

Okay. Oh, sorry. About the second example, for the businessmen, you said the counter recently is they do have something in mind for other people, right?

Yeah. But in the original it said for themselves. It implies for themselves, definitely.

Yeah. So we didn't really disprove them. Well, they never said the words for themselves.

You see, here's the original argument. They're not nice people because they're hoping for something. He didn't say it for himself.

Okay. Go put a letter on. All right.

Okay. Now we go here. Let's summarize where we are.

As far as this praise and this frustration, okay? You're a teacher, right? Offering a praise.

Okay. Which part? In the typa, in the typa part, in the praise part, we're talking about someone who teaches dependent origination.

Uh-huh. We're talking about eliminating stopping and starting. And we're talking about how they eliminate it.

So, I wish I had the original. It's a little uncomfortable. Oh, you want to see the 60?

Uh, the commentary, yeah. That's the commentary. The scan.

[Speaker 2]
The scan?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
It's here.

[Speaker 1]
I'm sorry, I don't have it.

[Speaker 2]
I'm going to have to show it to you guys because I don't know where we are on the screen right now. In fact, you're going to want to... You might even have to go back a page or...

[Speaker 1]
I zoomed in on it so as you can see.

[Speaker 2]
I don't know if he's hearing anything.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, man, it's not been recording? Sound? Oh, that's a nightmare.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, that's cool.

[Speaker 1]
It's okay, man. I wasn't taking notes this time, but...

[Speaker 2]
We've got lots of recordings. I've got all my recordings up in Dropbox.

[Speaker 1]
This is not the text. This is her text, I think, or something. Am I right?

[Speaker 2]
No, that's it.

[Speaker 1]
That's Kelsey's text? No, it's not. That's her text.

Okay, let me talk to her. You're not, like, staring at her. Sorry.

I have so many things open on here.

[Speaker 2]
I didn't see it in the Dropbox. How do you stop it? How do we stop it?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, the first and the third.

[Speaker 2]
First.

[Speaker 1]
First was... Someone is describing dependent origination. Is it this one?

In the prostration, you bow down to someone who is speaking about dependent origination. We'll let him see that in a minute. Whoa.

This is optimistical. That look right from across the room. Is that in the Dropbox?

Yeah. Okay, it is in the Dropbox. Okay.

I think it's the last file in your folder for...

[Speaker 2]
Let me see what everybody's saying. Oh, there are a lot of...

[Speaker 1]
Okay, it's okay. The typing's okay. Okay.

Thank you. I will read it this way. In the praising part of the praising and the prostration, dzö chag nyi döpa, okay?

In the praising part... It's still not comfortable, but anyway, okay. Someone is speaking about dependent origination.

Starting and stopping have been given up. And there's a way in which the starting and stopping have been given up. These three points are described in this verse, okay?

And here we go. So now, if I'm going to go through the meaning of the words of this verse, okay, I want to do it in two parts. First, I'll actually describe the meaning of the wording.

Second, I'll defend... I'll make a defense against some... What do you call it?

Some objections. Tsöpa-pong. Okay, tsöpa-pong.

I'll defend this against some objections that people might have. Okay. Here we go.

First one. Chi-ma means the latter or the last, okay? Tse-kye means line.

Tse means half. So he says, okay, let's talk about the last half line. The meaning of the last half line.

Let's talk about the meaning of the words of the last half line. The last half line is I bow down. Okay?

So he's going to explore the word I bow down, okay? Ka-la-na. To who?

Okay, the first question is to who? Who are you bowing down to? The one who taught dependent origination.

Now, this is a tough sentence, okay? In reply, we're going to say, to the person that we can say is the lord of the able ones only because he teaches dependent origination. And, because he's the lord of the able ones who does speak dependent origination.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Now, later he's going to make this distinction. You ready? If all you talk about is dependent origination, you're the lord of the able ones.

Okay? If you're the only one who talks about dependent origination, you're also the lord of the able ones. Okay?

Two meanings of kona. Yes?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, yeah, dependent origination.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. We translated and gave it out to you at Thanksgiving. Okay.

Anyway, what it says right here so far is, I'm bowing... Who are we bowing down to? To that person who we say is the lord of the able ones for the only reason that he spoke dependent origination.

And, we're going to bow down to the lord of the able ones who did speak dependent origination. Okay? Uh-huh.

Okay. And it'll be more clear in the next paragraph.

[Speaker 2]
The lord of the able ones himself who spoke dependent origination. Because...

[Speaker 1]
No. This is tough. Um...

The qualifications to be a lord of the able ones. Okay? Being the lord of the able ones itself.

Nyi. Being the lord of the able ones itself is something you establish by whether or not a person teaches dependent origination. Uh-huh.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah. Why? Shen la nub pa mey pa je.

Because no one else has the capacity. Shen la nub pa mey pa je. So, how do you get to be the lord of the able ones?

The jok je kyi gyu, the thing which establishes that is whether or not you describe dependent origination. Okay? So, by the way, in the verse, if you want to go all the way back there, it says, I bow down to the lord of the able ones, the one who destroyed starting and stopping, to the one who used this method to do that, and to the one who spoke dependent origination.

Okay? That's the original bow down. So, now he's just crossing the second to last line.

He divided it into those three parts.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. nyen te dang rang sang gye dang chen du senpa nang kyang, thupay wangpay tenpa nyi la. I corrected it here.

Okay. See here? Uh-huh.

Should be tok. It would have been tempting to say it was rak lay ban here somewhere, but you can get away with tok. Nyen te, lower track people, listeners, three tracks, right?

To Buddhahood. To three. Two Nirvana and one to Buddhahood.

By the way, they're all called Buddhahood in his school. That's another story. Enlightenment, not Buddhahood.

This track people, listeners, this track people, self-made Buddhas, and this track people, Bodhisattvas, they can understand nirpa, understood object, dependent origination, okay? From the teachings of the Lord of the Able Ones, but, rang wang tu nirpa me. Not independently.

They cannot do it by themselves. Yeah, they don't have the capacity to do that on their own. Yeah.

Okay, got it? Yeah. De ta na, therefore, tu wang du dupa tenjung sum wang ngepa la du.

De ta na, deciding whether someone is a Lord of the Able Ones or not, okay, depends on du, okay, B-L-T-O-S, deciding whether one is a Buddha, depends on ascertaining, ngepa as a verb, not fixed number. Be careful, okay? Depends on ascertaining whether or not they are teaching dependent origination.

Yeah. If they're teaching incorrectly, they're Buddha. If they're not, they're not.

So deciding whether somebody is a Lord of the Able Ones depends on ascertaining whether or not they're teaching dependent origination. And then he says something, he said, there comes up a very, what do you call it? Intriguing argument.

An intriguing argument, okay? Because, you can cut the sentence here, and you can stop it at shema. Now suppose somebody says, okay, I'm sorry, let's glue the whole sentence together.

I'm sorry, the whole sentence becomes shema. Okay, you ready? Just a minute.

So this whole sentence, de ta na after shema has to hang together. I made a mistake. Okay.

Forget what I just said. I'm with you. Okay, you ready?

Yeah. Okay, so de ta na, if what you say is true, okay, then, deciding whether or not a person is a Buddha depends on whether or not they are teaching dependent origination. But deciding whether or not they can teach dependent origination depends on deciding whether or not they're a Buddha.

[Speaker 2]
You got it?

[Speaker 1]
They're not a Buddha if they're not teaching dependent origination. But if what they're teaching is dependent origination or not, you have to decide whether they're a Buddha. Because only a Buddha can do it.

So he says, pen cin du, these two things rely on each other. Therefore, I say he's neither. Okay.

If you can't decide someone's a Buddha unless they're teaching dependent origination, and if you can't tell if it's dependent origination or not unless it's taught by a Buddha, then I decide he can't be either one. Ni ka min du. He can't be either one.

I'll say it again. If only a Buddha can describe dependent origination, okay? And if only by deciding whether they're teaching dependent origination, they're a Buddha or not, it's an endless circle.

It's a catch-22. New English expression, catch-22. It comes from a book written like 30 years ago?

[Speaker 2]
No more, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
60 years ago. It's about the Second World War. It means...

Well, I'll give you an example. That's a gorgeous book. If they tell you you have to join the army to fight in a war, if you agree, you're crazy.

If you're crazy, you don't have to go. But if you agree to go, you're also crazy.

[Speaker 2]
No, no, no. Catch-22 is if you're in the army and you want to get out.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's the same.

[Speaker 2]
You can get out if you're crazy. If you say you're crazy and you want to get out, you can't because you would have to be sane to say that. So there's no way to get out by using the crazy clause.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, if you're already in the army, but if you start shooting your own people, then you're crazy, right? Then you can get out. But you wouldn't stay in the army unless you're crazy because you have to kill people.

So if a person says, I don't want to be in the army because I don't want to kill people, they say, you're crazy, but you have to stay. I don't know, anyway.

[Speaker 2]
That's a great book.

[Speaker 1]
In the book, it's a rule in the army handbook that you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't, but it became a phrase in English, like, oh, catch-22.

[Speaker 2]
You don't matter what you do.

[Speaker 1]
It's very common.

[Speaker 2]
I'm more famous than whatever I'm talking about.

[Speaker 1]
What does it say, therefore I say he's neither? Hey, right here. No, it's, therefore is here.

I say neither one. I say, if he teaches dependent origination, he doesn't prove he's a Buddha. Okay, and...

Sorry. And if what he... He can't teach dependent origination unless he's a Buddha, and if he does teach dependent origination, he must be a Buddha.

I disagree with both. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I disagree with both.

If what you mean is that when two conditions depend on each other for being proved, then by the very nature, neither one can be established. I agree with that. I agree with your principle, that if one depends on...

If perceiving one depends on the other, and perceiving the other depends on the one, then you could never resolve it. I agree, okay? But, if you're saying in general these two conditions are incorrect, I say, khyabpa machu.

Okay? Okay. I agree with your principle, but I don't agree with it in this case.

Yeah. Okay. And he's going to say more about it, but you have to sit with this.

Gyaltsabje... It's tricky. You have to sit with him.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
yen dang shen gyi, mi dupar tenjun suma kone, dupar chi shen na. So he's done with that argument in his mind. Yeah.

Okay? Why, chi shen na, why is it, okay, that you don't praise one because of other good qualities, shen gyi mi dupar? Why is it you don't praise this person because of other good qualities, okay?

But only dependent origination. And why is it you only praise them if they are teaching dependent origination? Yeah.

Okay, why? And my reply to you has three parts.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Why don't you praise this guy because he has other good qualities, like infinite love, for example? You know, why do you only praise to him if he's teaching dependent origination? Okay?

And my answer to you has three aspects. I'm going to go at it from three angles, okay? First one, you have to think about the nature of the person who's making the praise.

Aha. Who wrote the praise. Who's that?

[Speaker 2]
Hari Nagarjuna.

[Speaker 1]
So, first of all, you have to have some sensitivity to, you know, the character of the person who's doing the praising. Aha. Okay?

Secondly, you have to have some sensitivity to the way, nampa means the aspect of the praise. How is he praising? Okay?

You have to have some sensitivity to how is he praising. And third, you have to have some sensitivity to the reason why he's doing the praising. The cause of the praise, is that what you said?

Yeah, the reason why he's doing the praising. Okay, these three. The nature of the praisor, the feeling of the praise, and the reason he's doing the praising.

Here's dambo nyipa sumpa. Now he's got dambo nyipa sumpa.

[Speaker 2]
Dambo nyipa sumpa.

[Speaker 1]
By the way, why would the fact that the Buddha described dependent origination be particularly important to Arya Nagarjuna?

[Speaker 2]
Okay, okay, got it.

[Speaker 1]
That's the point.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, here we go.

[Speaker 1]
First, look at the Arya himself, the Arya himself, the master himself, has reached nyipa, okay, at a certain level of joy caused by perceiving emptiness himself. Okay, and he has sikpa, heavily laden word. In English we say laden word.

It has piles of meaning on top of it. Why? Sikpa.

What's sikpa, the honorific of? Sik. Sik.

Chenrezig. It's the honorific of what? Look up.

What's the unhonorific? Unhonorific. Of sik.

Of sik. Tong. I thought it was tong.

[Speaker 2]
Get it? Tong. Tong lam.

Tong lam.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, okay. He has italics. Seen.

Got it. That if you understand tendo, it is the source of all good qualities. Jung ne akhara.

Ratna akhara. He has seen, seen, that understanding dependent origination in the form of seeds coming out and, you know, creating objects is the source of all good qualities. And he's had that very enjoyable experience of seeing emptiness directly.

It says that in two separate parts. Yeah. Dong.

Okay. That's the first reason why he wouldn't bother praising other good qualities of the Buddha. That's why he's focusing on praising the Buddha because he taught how seeds make things.

That's why he wants to draw attention to the person who taught that things come from seeds. Is he saying seen dependent origination or seen emptiness? Here it's implied.

It's implied. He just says seen, right? Just seen.

Yeah. He didn't say emptiness directly. He just said, get it?

Seen. But this is the way, this is the Sikh in Chenre Sikh, right? He sees, looks down, okay?

So, first of all, what was the question of the other guy? Why is it that you only... Yeah, why don't you praise this guy's other good qualities?

Why do you focus on the fact that he taught that the pen is coming from seeds? Why are you focusing on that? Well, first of all, he had a pretty cool experience where he had a really cool thing happen to him about this because he's an Arya.

And secondly, because he realizes that if you teach someone about seeds, that's the source of all good qualities. So why talk about the good qualities that result from that? Why not talk about the thing that makes all the good qualities?

Go straight to the source. Yeah, go to what caused all his other good qualities. Okay, got it?

That's all part of the aspect of the Arya. Aspect of the one who made the nature of... The praiser.

[Speaker 2]
The praiser, yeah, that's what I mean.

[Speaker 1]
So, why this particular praise of the Buddha focuses on teaching seeds that produce the pen? Why? Because the person writing it had a personal experience related to that.

Okay? And secondly, there's a certain style of the praise, or flavor. What is that?

I don't know. This is tough. Sometimes they say, tenjungi dekona ni.

So get used to this expression. Especially Mr. Dependent Origination over there from Indonesia. Sometimes they say, tenjungi dekona ni.

Tenjungi dekona ni. The suchness of dependent origination. The suchness of dependent origination.

The suchness of the seeds. The emptiness of the seeds. Oh, wow.

But that's not... We're getting there. So get...

First try on those pants, okay? The suchness of dependent origination. Now that could have a lot of meanings.

One, it could just mean the marriage of karma and emptiness. It can just mean that. The marriage of the seeds idea and the emptiness idea.

But if you want to go deeper, it's the emptiness of dependent origination itself. So when you put those words together, when you put them... What do you call it?

Konjungi. Konjungi. When you set two things...

A positive? Anyway, when you put them on the stage together, these two guys, emptiness and dependent origination. It can mean the emptiness of dependent origination or it can mean the combination of the understanding of the seeds and the understanding of the emptiness.

And he's flirting with that concept here. So, sungja means what the Buddha was talking about, which is tenzin, dependent origination, is itself rangshigi makye. She is not coming from anywhere.

Didn't start on its own. The subject matter that the Buddha is being praised for talking about itself isn't coming from the Buddha. Okay?

Didn't start by itself. Therefore, if you understand that, tarta, we had it today in the DCI class, tanzingi tawa tropa minyuro. Yeah, extreme view.

Tarta means the two extreme views. Either things come from themselves or if they don't, they're not real. Okay?

Those two views. This person is separated from all of them. Yeah, that stink, that stench, that fart, of those two ideas.

Okay? I don't suggest you use that. To be free of that, cimitamsa gyalten la te, tenchen tu gyur pe, since he is the person who teaches that, he is the lord of all kakaris.

Okay? He is the lord of all kakaris. So, this is talking about, now we can say, gyur pe nampa.

The praise itself has a certain taste. The praise itself has a certain, what do you call that in music? Tone?

Tone to it. Okay? You can almost say number to tone.

What's the tenor or the tone of the praise? It's like it's all buttered in emptiness. Buttered in emptiness.

I say buttered Phil gets happy. Anything that's butter or ball is attractive. Yeah.

Did you try butter on top of peanut butter? A couple more minutes.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, right.

[Speaker 1]
It'll take about four minutes extra. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
So, anyway.

[Speaker 1]
So, this person that he's praising has to be the lord of all good qualities. Okay? Because he's the person who teaches a position which is free of all of the stink of extremes.

Because what he talks about is a dependent origination which has never started by itself. He's buttering it in emptiness. Yeah, and in a way, if you want to follow that line of thought, what he's saying here is that the taste or the tone of this praise is that the teaching on dependent origination didn't come from the Buddha.

It's coming from my seeds. Like, that's really powerful. So, you're supposed to get this little taste.

The taste of the praise is that the Buddha teaching dependent origination itself didn't start from its own side. It's coming from us. Okay?

Very powerful. That's why we praise him because he taught dependent origination. Because the dependent origination he taught is buttered in emptiness, or the fact that it didn't come from itself.

Gyaltsabje is off the charts. Well, that's kind of deep. It's pretty amazing.

So, it's not really in the words, right? But it's kind of just in the meaning. Yeah, now the third thing we're supposed to consider is why did he bow down?

Why did he bow down? Töpe gyü. Sorry, why did he praise?

What was the cause of the praise? Sumbani. Lopan tenjun chepa shepa dang, dey tungpa po drin shepa lakpa pitipo.

Because what the Master, Nagarjuna, has agreed to do is to explain himself dependent origination. What the Master himself has shepa, here it means agreed to do and not agreed to a philosophical position. What he has, sometimes I translate it as dang, d-e-i-g-n.

What he has, dang means when a king says, okay, I'll have tea with you. It means agreed, but from a very high place, like, oh, thank you so much. So, he's agreed to teach dependent origination, right?

So he should at the beginning make some kudos to the guy who started it all. To the guy who went that way. If you're going to write a book about I don't know, football, you have to praise the guy who started football first.

You see what I mean? So he's just showing respect to the source of dependent origination. So that's the cause of the praising.

Why is he praising? It's illogical. Why?

Because he's going to talk about dependent origination. So, before he does that, it makes sense that he would talk about how cool the guy who started it was. Got it?

Okay. I just want to say, deign is to condescend. Not necessarily.

[Speaker 2]
It can have that tone.

[Speaker 1]
It often does.

[Speaker 2]
It's just something that one considers to be beneath one's dignity.

[Speaker 1]
When you, like in the Christian prayer book, which is where I grew up, you know, you who deign to look upon us, it doesn't mean...

[Speaker 2]
It's more like holy action.

[Speaker 1]
Well, the word condescend always implies negative feeling, but deign doesn't know. It's used in Christian for you didn't have to pay any attention to us, but you did. Thanks a lot.

[Speaker 2]
Is it D-E-I-G-N? Yeah. Thank you, Geshe-la.

[Speaker 1]
This is amazing. Well, we got to go. We got to go downstairs now.

[Speaker 2]
No non-archaism of deign. Because we have 11 minutes until there's no non-archaism of deign. It has the archaic meaning of condescension.

[Speaker 1]
Thanks, Geshe-la. It's not meant to have a derogatory sense. But it does.

I know. Ge-wa-di Ge-wo-kun Se-na-mye-she Tsob-so-shin Se-na-mye-she Le-jung-we Tam-pa-kun Ni-to-pa-sho Om-ma-hum