Классика Алмазного огранщика: Верхний Срединный путь — Великие книги мудрости, занятие 10

[Speaker 1]
OK, so I didn't have time to prepare your text. So it's going to be a little rough. But it just means we have to go slower, OK?

So bear with me, OK? When I spent three hours figuring it out before, I look smart. But now I have to spend that time here.

So here we go. And that's the way it is at the end of the term, you know? I go into the term with a little bit of stuff in storage.

But by the time at the end of the term, I'm like this. So I'm going to go back to the line that we just finished before. So this is the guy who said lo me, meaning what?

You say there's no mind when an aria goes into the term. Yeah, you have to add that. When an aria is an indirect perception of emptiness.

What about if you say lo yu? I'm not going to waste my time. Oh, I'll kiss you, but your wife is here.

OK, yeah, exactly. I'm not going to waste my time on you. If you think there's a lo with a nangwa, with a positive appearance, then I don't even talk to you.

But if you say there's no mind, that's more interesting, because so many people have thought that. And that's worth refuting. So kye la nyi sen nangway lo.

So this is the last sentence we had was one argument in favor of saying that there is some kind of lo there. There is some kind of mind there. Maybe it's not the one with the nangwa that you said.

Maybe it's one with a megak, with an absence. That's focusing on an absence. OK?

But there is a mind. OK? So then he says, well, do non-Aryas have minds?

Yeah. What kind of minds do they have? Nyi nang.

The two appearances, discrepancies. Yeah, you can say it. Who have two contradictory...

Viewpoints or points of view. Appearances. Aspects going on.

OK. What's the two contradictory aspects? They're deceived by...

The husband who yelled at me looks like... He's coming from his own side. Coming from his own side.

But actually, I know he's not. So there's a discrepancy between those two perceptions. Oh, but this is...

We're talking about the discrepancies in a so-so kye world. Yeah. We don't even know that he's not, right?

Well, we're just positing the possibility. OK. Do you believe that people who have yet to reach Arya have this kind of discrepancy going on?

Do you agree? He says... Yeah.

Yeah, I do. Then, so do they have lo? Do they have a mind?

They do. And he says... Yeah, by the way, your lo is totally different from his lo.

He's talking buddhi, mahat, you know? Lo can be a pretty confusing thing.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Your problem... One of your problems is you got also loi wangpo also.

[Speaker 2]
Loi wangpo, oh yeah, right. Yeah, the injuries. Then it's manas.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, first it was buddhi in the second one, and then it becomes manas. Yeah, it's very frustrating. And now his lo is a different thing.

[Speaker 2]
So anyway...

[Speaker 1]
So, if there does exist los, states of mind, among people who haven't got to the direct perception of emptiness yet, which are... In a state of discrepancy. Yeah, or something like that.

Then, why can't we say, mishak, chichir mishak, why can't we posit... This is njok. This is a tense of the verb joke.

Why cannot we posit bijak? Why can't we posit a mind for an arya in the direct perception of emptiness, which is free of that, you know? Why can't you talk about that mind?

In fact, if you modify the mind of a person that hasn't reached arya yet, then you're implying that there's the opposite. You see? If you say a mind which is messed up, then you must be implying a mind which is not messed up.

Once you add the word which is not messed up, clause, adjective clause, then you... automatically you're implying there's a state of mind which is not messed up. So, what's the problem?

What's the problem? What kind of problem? Yeah, why you say there's no mind?

Okay? Yeah, we're talking to the bad guy. Gyaltsab Jai's talking to the bad guy.

Then he said... it's implied here. Gyaltsab Jai's...

there's an implied response here, which is that lo tsam la nyi nang gi khyab pa. lo yin na, nyi nang gi lo yin pa'i khyab. There is a mind...

No, lo yin na, not yin na. Lo yin na. Oh, it is a mind.

If something is a mind, then nyi nang gi lo yin pa'i khyab. Then it must be a state of mind which has that discrepancy. You know?

So, then he came back with that. Okay? He came back with that.

We said, if you're going to talk about a messed up mind, then you're implying there's a non-messed up mind. And he said, no, no. I'm saying mind and messed up mind are synonyms.

Right. You know? If it's a state of mind, it has to be a messed up mind.

Okay? Which is a reasonable response. It's not an unreasonable response.

I was thinking the same thing. Yeah, I was too. And so he came back with, no, when I say messed up mind, I'm talking about a state of mind.

Okay? Then we say, kang tu yang drub mi nu te. But you can't prove that.

You know? That's not something you could ever prove. Okay?

There's no circumstance under which you could prove that. Drelwa meypay chirro. Because then there would be no connection.

And I, you know, I just sat on it for a while and I thought, I think, okay, now it's just my theory, okay? Is a Sosokyo connected to a Bhagavad-gita?

[Speaker 2]
Well... Yeah. Oh yeah, great.

Sure. Right, only if there's a mind to connect.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, all non-I's become I's.

[Speaker 2]
Right. Okay?

[Speaker 1]
So, yeah, there must be a connection between non-I's and I's. Okay? It has an effect on the touch.

Well that, no, that's deeper. We're not going there. Okay?

So, if it's that all minds, if you're going to say that now, that all minds are messed up minds, then non-I's don't become I's. Yeah. Because he's not connected.

Then there's no connection between the I in the direct perception of emptiness and the non-I he used to be. That he used to be. Because there's nothing to tie them together, no.

Okay? He doesn't talk more about it. Yeah.

Okay? And you can, you know, I'm just speculating, basically. So, when translating that, I mean, I guess there's some kind of middle way between putting too much that he's not saying in, but also kind of guiding it to make sense?

Yeah, especially here, especially with Gyeltsab Je, I don't think it's fair to your reader not to give some speculation here. A little bit. Because it's just, it's too, the leaps of his intellect are too big.

Your reader won't be able to read it. Yeah. I don't get it.

I wouldn't give it a read. Why are we going to that? You might want to help them a little bit.

If the whole book is like this, you might end, you might have to end up writing a... Commentary. You know, sentence between every sentence that says this is why he's saying this or something.

In like italics or something? Yeah, yeah. It's possible the book will be so bad that we need that.

I was just... I think Word's book is, Word's book is, looks like it's going to head that way. You know, that it just won't be comprehensible unless you have a running commentary of some kind.

Okay. Which is, you know, more than we intended. But...

Because those are... Anytime you make your own comment to Gyaltsabde, there's a danger of saying something wrong. Completely misinterpreting it?

No. Misinterpreting is one thing, but anytime a Westerner writes a comment to a Tibetan's text, they usually make some mistakes in the comment. So, you know.

Okay. DE LTA MI NA Now, now we're into new territory for me. I'll have to think about this stuff because I haven't...

I've read it once, but not much. DE LTA MI NA NYAM SHAG NA NYID NA YOD PAS THA GNYIS RIGS PA RGYUR TE If that were not the case, okay, what? I don't know yet.

If that were not the case, then NYAM SHAG NA implied Pabongka Rinpoche's NYAM SHAG.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. In the meditation of an Arya on emptiness, it would be appropriate, RIGS PA RGYUR next line, it would be appropriate to speak of, THA GNYIS, okay, to use the term, they have the discrepancy. You see?

If it were not this way, then then it would be appropriate to mention the discrepancy in the same breath that you're talking about the Arya's meditation. Okay? Well, then the guy says, why do you say that?

And we say, because it is appropriate to speak of mind. Okay? By the way, that's easy because we're gonna, it's gonna come in the next sentence.

Okay? We didn't prove it yet. We're about to prove it.

Okay? He would like to say you can't use the word mind in connection with an Arya's direct perception of emptiness. But, this argument presupposes that it is okay and then he's gonna prove why.

Okay? So, this sentence says according to you it would be appropriate to speak of the discrepancy for an Arya who's in the direct perception of emptiness. And then he's gonna say, cheat you.

And then, why do you say that? And we're gonna say, because it is appropriate to speak of a mind during the direct perception of emptiness by an Arya. And he just got through saying when I say mind I mean messed up mind.

Okay? When I say messed up mind I'm not implying it's not a mayinga. I'm not implying a state of mind which is not messed up.

When you're not messed up you don't have mind anymore. Got it? So, now we say well then if you if when you say mind you always mean messed up mind okay?

Then it must be appropriate to speak of an Arya's direct perception of emptiness as messed up. And then he says, why? I mean I just went over that.

And we say no because he does have a mind. And then he says, well I told you I don't agree with that from the beginning. Right.

And then we say then we this is a very famous expression NYIN RJE SEMS DANG NYIS SU MED LO DANG ZHES PA DANG DUR YANG DE LTAR GSUNGS PA'I PHYIR NYIN RJE SEMS DANG NYIS SU MED LO DANG is a line from Chandrakirti.

[Speaker 2]
Oh.

[Speaker 1]
It's from Madhyamakavatara and there's a long discussion of it by Tsongkhapa which I've already finished.

[Speaker 2]
Oh cool. So I can go find it and go. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
So so in the Gomba Rabso and in Chandrakirti Uma Lajupa Madhyamakavatara Let's go get to Madhyamakavatara. I put references here. Yeah.

So I'm gonna Illumination. Okay. Now to do to do Je Tsongkhapa's Illumination I had to translate Entering the Middle Way, right?

The whole thing? Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Well, I'm translating as I go.

[Speaker 1]
So there's there's that and now I'm gonna add that to your to your folder. In the Dropbox? Well, I will in the Dropbox eventually.

Right now I'm just in my own stuff.

[Speaker 2]
Cool.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, so I put it in references.

[Speaker 2]
So you're gonna end up with it with Entering the Middle Way translated in the back of your Gomba Rabso?

[Speaker 1]
It has to be, because he quotes it. Oh my God. Okay, so here's Entering the Middle Way.

Nisu. How long is Entering the Middle Way? There's the verse, okay?

There's the verse he's referring to. Okay. Cool.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, opening lines.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, verse it's lines three and four.

[Speaker 2]
Wow.

[Speaker 1]
So he threw that at the other guy. That's awesome. The other guy said, but I told him to bring it and I don't accept that he has a mind.

And we said, oh, so he doesn't have low, right? He says, yeah, he doesn't have low. And then we say, oh, so Chandrakirti's wrong in the opening lines of his book.

Okay, got it? So you can chop that out. You see?

And go put it in your translation right here.

[Speaker 2]
Because love and only love was said to be the seed for all the excellent crops of the virtuous.

[Speaker 1]
That's a, yeah, that gets pretty psychedelic.

[Speaker 2]
It's the first debate you and I had.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, really? Well, that's a this gets, this is a Gyalmeh Khorlo actually. Because what creates bodhisattvas is what Buddha spit out.

So there's a cycle of bodhisattvas and buddhas. Buddhas come from bodhisattvas and buddhas teach bodhisattvas. And then those bodhisattvas become new buddhas and they teach other bodhisattvas.

And this is part of a discussion about that. Cool. So Okay So, Dear Jan Detar Sunbe Echen What's that mean?

Do you these words it's like teaching that it says it like that in the scripture. Yeah, because it's what it says right here. Right here is where?

Entering the middle way. Oh, Nagarjuna's 60 verses. In the book we're talking about.

I believe that's what he's saying. Now, if you were really cool, you'd go find it. But I would put myself a note here that by the end of my book I have to identify where he's talking about.

Okay? It's almost certainly here in the 60 verses. They also mention the lo Oh, we can search the 60 verses for lo.

Yeah, it's probably in the previous verse. Here's your root Here's a lo in the previous verse that we were just commenting on.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, is there? Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
But here Gangdaki lo yu me le The first line of the last verse that we're on. Well, I'm in your text now. Am I in your text now?

It looks like it. I don't see that. Where is that?

Gangi lo du yu me le Yeah, well, this is lo du. No, oh, sorry. But that's in the beginning.

If you go down, there's more. Oh, you know what? That's not Gangi lo joma?

No, it's your text. Let's look up lo here. There you go.

This is the verse we're still on. Oh, you know what? Our Tenggyur version is different from this one.

This says Gangdaki lo yu me le and our Tenggyur says Gangi lo du yu me le Yeah Tsongkhapa's Tsongkhapa included the 60 verses in his own commentary. I'm sorry, Gyaltsabje did. But he may have been using another translation.

I think we pulled this version somewhere else but this isn't from it wasn't included in Gyaltsabje's commentary, I think. Oh, it is not? I can't remember now.

Well, I think I pulled this out of the Tenggyur. Okay? And so this line is not the same in this version as it is in Gyaltsabje's version.

So this is lo du and that was lo. Let's see if there's another lo in this version. Because that wouldn't be the same word as lo in Sanskrit.

Okay, and I did notice some other discrepancies here. Here the Sanskrit is buddhir.

[Speaker 2]
Buddhir, that's funny. That's buddhir.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, there's three los in the Tenggyur version. Okay? The first one is lo du.

The second sipa mikyu gyun drangwa lo yi tongwa gyongwa ni your mind has come to see that samsara is like a mirage, like an illusion. Your mind has come to see okay, that samsara is like a mirage, is like an illusion. So if we read if we read that line dir as meaning here in the sixty verses we got to go find some los in the sixty verses.

There's only three. Here's the second one. Now I'll give you the third one.

su kyi rang shi shepa yi lo chok tenpa number two Those who possess the highest form of mind, who see the real nature of form, are freed from samsara. They get free. Could any one of those three refer to the direct perception emptiness?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
At least two of them maybe. Okay, but now I like what you said. I think that dir is so immediate.

I think he's talking about the verse we just had. Okay. Those whose minds go beyond.

Yeah, okay. So, I think Gyaltsabje is saying we got a lo right here that we're talking about.

[Speaker 2]
We're pretty sure this quotation is Is Gyaltsabje quoting it and not a quotation that we wrote it from elsewhere?

[Speaker 1]
I'm going to have to look back and see. I can't. It's easy to find out.

It's very easy to find out. Kongduchun knew so. Okay.

Easy to find out. Just go look it up in the symbol. Is it in the symbol?

I'm trying to remember that too.

[Speaker 2]
It's in the uncatalog.

[Speaker 1]
No, I don't think we It was one of those missing books that we set to find.

[Speaker 2]
Or it was in the uncatalog more likely. It's probably in the uncatalog.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, we could turn the air off. I have a suit jacket out there too if you want. You have a suit jacket?

You want my jacket? Okay. It is.

It's in the text. Kongduchun Yeah, it is Gyaltsabje.

[Speaker 2]
He's kind of smart.

[Speaker 1]
Well, he might have been using obviously he's using a different translation. There may be other differences that we find. He does have I noticed one already a different one.

So anyway, that's nice. So is budi closer to lo or lodru? Lodru is a different Sanskrit word.

Any guesses what lodru would be in Sanskrit? It might be mati. Let's go look.

Here it's mati. I got the dollar. Here it's mati.

Oh, okay. Mental comes from mati. Here it's mati.

It's mati. And lo is more often Well, lo is going to be a lot of things. It's going to be six different things.

Manasi, mati. More often di. Say again.

[Speaker 2]
A mind.

[Speaker 1]
Not intelligence. Yeah, you're right. This is important because it is the way that I've been translating lo because he's referenced it a few times up until now.

Lo is more like budi which is more like mind than intelligence.

[Speaker 2]
What about citta?

[Speaker 1]
Citta is more like sembra. Which is what he's saying. He says nidra is sembra.

Here it's a mind. Anyway, let's not go there. Exploring the meanings, the difference between citta and mati and all those guys is hopeless.

The first dharma tries in his commentaries of Dhammakosha. He has a small section on it but it's pretty hopeless. They're pretty much interchangeable.

Okay. Lo, you... You want to read?

So I can stall a little bit. Sure. Let's see where are we.

Lo yin na. Right there? Lo yin na yu yang ke lang gupe yu yul chen gyi chupa ma shiwar ngyur ro she na.

Okay, good. Ngyur ro. Lo yin na yu yang ke lang gupe.

If there's a mind there, then you also would have to agree that there's a... An object there.

[Speaker 2]
Who said object?

[Speaker 1]
It's going back a little bit, so not yet. The short beard is worse than the long beard. No, I mean as far as kissing goes.

I've heard, I haven't... You know.

[Speaker 2]
Lo yin na.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. If there's a mind, there must be an object. Okay.

And in that case, if you say there's a mind in the direct perception of emptiness, then you're going to have to say that there's an object. How do we translate chupa? Emanation?

[Speaker 2]
No. Elaboration. The elaboration.

[Speaker 1]
Or the... construct sometimes. Meaning...

constructed by the mind. The mental construct. Okay.

But in the study of Middle Way, it always means... drondo. Okay.

Yeah, overestimation. Yeah, this thing that you're... this mountain that you're making out of a mohil.

There's... what is... there's some kind of English word.

This thing you're hypothesizing. It's like a patterning, like a mental patterning.

[Speaker 2]
Exaggerating.

[Speaker 1]
The implication is false.

[Speaker 2]
Assumption.

[Speaker 1]
Huh? Hallucination. Too strong.

This thing you're making up in your mind. Paranoia. Okay, this thing you're making up in your mind.

Okay? About what? Hypothesis.

Separate... separate... objects and subjects.

Okay. So... do we drondo...

do we overestimate... subjects and objects? Yes.

Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah.

And right now you're saying if you say that there is a mind, then you have to say that there's an object that the mind has got. No, you will have to say that that... elaborating...

over-elaborating... believing there's a subject and object there which are not there, which are coming from their own side in DCI language. Ma shiwa.

Have not been put to rest. Have not been put to rest during the direct perception of emptiness. Because there's still an object and a subject going on.

He overestimates the overestimation. Yeah, right. Yeah, yeah.

This is kachi. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah, it's a kachi.

Did you catch what I just said? Yeah. We do talk about an overestimation of subject and object, but that doesn't mean there's never any subject and object.

There's just the wrong way of looking at subject and object. But it doesn't mean there's never any subject and object. You know, we're not saying that.

He's already made that mistake. Okay, got it? Kind of.

But I mean... you said it clearly, I just had to get it from the video. Okay.

Now, this is beautiful and this is the answer I would have given to what he just said. nyam shak gyi sikpay dun ni Now, when we're talking about the dun, which is sikpa by nyam shak... When we're talking about the meaning that is seen in the direct perception in the meditation of an object...

This dun doesn't mean meaning. Yeah, it means object.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
When we're talking about the object, which is perceived by nyam shak, what... what did... what...

He just made a... He just made a... He just said something which reveals how he feels about Arya.

Do I have to offer money now?

[Speaker 2]
Their mind isn't pure? It's a kind of messed up mind?

[Speaker 1]
But they're seeing an object. What lam is he on, of the five lam? Third.

What's it called?

[Speaker 2]
That's a tong.

[Speaker 1]
Tong lam. Why didn't he say tong? He said sik.

Sik is high honorific. Chen re sik, avalokiteshvara. Right.

He's... he's... he's saying, Arya, whoo, Arya.

He used the high honorific verb. He used the dharma verb for this guy. You know, this guy...

[Speaker 2]
Is he being sarcastic? No, he's...

[Speaker 1]
this is us. Right.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
But no? I don't know. But I mean, you guys should be aware, he's...

he's praising Arya in this sentence already. Oh. Okay?

Okay? The object which is seen by an Arya during their direct perception entrance, but the verb he uses for sik is only used with high honorific. Right, right.

Okay? Okay? It jumps out to a trained person.

Okay? Sikpay dun ni. It's unusual.

They don't call it sik lam, they call it tong lam. See what I mean? So he's making a point...

Yeah, he's saying, come on, this guy's special. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay?

Nyamsakay sikpay dun ni. Is there... Now, if you had a basket with all the objects that the direct perception emptiness sees in it, would there be in there subject and object?

No. No. No.

The only thing you can see during the direct perception emptiness is ultimate reality. Yeah. You can't even think to yourself...

I did it. Yeah, I did it. Because that would be yul chen, you see?

That would be... That would be a perception of the person seeing, who is not ultimate reality. So, so now Gyaltsabje is saying like, I understand.

It is true. Yul dun yul chen kang yang meypay che. It is true in general that there's...

That there's no subject and object, or there's no subject state of mind? Yeah, okay. There is no object and subject present among the...

in the basket of things which... which is seen by the path of seeing. Okay?

But kalang gyur means how on earth?

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
Kala literally means where. Gyur. Kalang gyur.

Kalang gyur. Right here. Kalang gyur.

Kalang gyur means... it's an expression of disbelief. Kalang gyur.

How on earth could it be that you haven't put to rest your elaborations? Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
How on earth? Just because there's an... Just because there's no object and subject, generally speaking, among the objects which the path of seeing is focused on, how on earth can you say then that they...

that those subject and objects, that the construction, the... The elaboration. Give me a word that means wrong.

Oh. Yeah, the... The fantasy or, you know, the misperception that there's a...

that there's object and subject has not been put to rest. How could that be? Okay.

[Speaker 2]
The opponent is saying there's no... There is.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah, no, it's deeper than that. I understand what you're saying.

It should have been YOD PA here. Should have been what? It'd feel more comfortable with YOD PA here, but what we're saying is, look, this is the wrong look.

Up to MED, up to MED PA is our belief. Yeah. Look, among the objects seen by the direct perception emptiness, there is no subject and objects.

So, how could you ever say that we have failed to put them to rest?

[Speaker 2]
Right, right, right, right. The wrong ones. The wrong ones.

But they said there is a... object. The other guy.

[Speaker 1]
No, the other guy said there's no... there's no subject. No mind.

He said no subject. Okay, and he says... Now listen, the other guy said there's no...

there's no subject state of mind during the direct perception emptiness. We say there is. He says, if you say there is, then the guy hasn't stopped subjects and objects.

And we said, nobody has stopped subjects and objects, because he's looking at emptiness directly.

[Speaker 2]
He stopped seeing them.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, he stopped... they're not what he sees, but they are the seer. Okay, there...

there is a subject looking at an object during the direct perception of emptiness, but that subject doesn't see the subject and the object that are going on during the direct perception of emptiness, because if that happened, they'd be popped out of emptiness. So, I'll say it again. During the direct perception of emptiness, there is a subject state of mind, there is an object that it's looking at, emptiness, but that subject state of mind with its object, together, are not something that that state of mind can see at that time.

Because it includes a guy who is not emptiness, which is the subject. He's not saying that here, right? You're just explaining that.

He's not saying that there is... Well, we're saying... we're saying...

look... so... I had Stanley's same problem the first time I looked at it.

I thought maybe the me here should be you, but that's not the point. It's true, we say, that among the basket of objects looked on upon... looked at by the direct perception of emptiness, there is no subject...

subject and object, that's one thing. Subject and object. There is no subject and object.

But that doesn't mean it's not a subject state of mind. But does he say that, or is he saying... Again.

Well, no, what he says... It doesn't mean that they've not stopped... Good, yeah.

That they haven't put to rest... the fact that there's no subject and object, which is true. If it's true that there is no subject and object, which is the object that they look at, then how on hell could you claim that they haven't put to rest that problem?

How could you claim they haven't put to rest the delusion? Delusion's not bad. Fabrication's even better.

Fabrication's even better. How could you say they haven't stopped the fabrication? Because it's not...

If in their direct perception of emptiness there is no... there is no subject and object, how could you claim that they haven't stopped the fabrication, that there exists a self-existent subject and object? See, it's different.

Okay? Okay? Yeah.

A subject and object which are coming from you, okay, are not among the things they can perceive at that moment.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, right.

[Speaker 1]
Now, now, follow me. Therefore, how can you claim that they haven't put to rest the belief in a subject and object which come from their own side?

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
It's weird. He's switching subjects and objects. The first one that has been...

the one that's not the object of that direct perception is the one that really exists. The one that's coming from you. Right.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
The one that's been stopped is the one that's coming from you.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
If that's the case, how can you say he hasn't stopped the one that's not coming from you? Yeah, yeah. It's tricky.

It's amazing. Yeah. Okay?

[Speaker 2]
It's really tricky. Yeah, it's really cool.

[Speaker 1]
It reminds me of that Jason Koppas... It's cool, because he could have said it much easier.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
He could have said it much easier. Yeah, yeah. But it's because it's relating to what the guy just said to him before.

Yeah, maybe. Explain later? Say again?

I'll say it again. Oh, does he say more later? I just was looking.

I hope he says something more later.

[Speaker 2]
Tell me again.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, then he says, just because a person just because subjects and objects are not in the basket of things that are seen by an eye as direct perception emptiness, doesn't mean that we can deny subjects and objects, in general. Yeah, de tsam gyi, just that, to de tsam gyi, it would be inappropriate, meaning, for that, for that reason alone, de tsam gyi, okay, that they are not perceived by an eye in the direct perception, for just using that alone as a reason to say there's no objects and subjects, is murik. That's bad logic.

That's bad logic. Right, right, right, right, right. I'll say it again, because half the people in this room are having trouble right now.

During the direct perception of emptiness, can you be aware of yourself?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
No. Therefore, you cannot be aware of the fact of subjects and objects right then. Okay?

Okay? But that doesn't mean you are not a subject at that moment. You're not aware of it, but you are.

Okay? You don't have to cancel all subject states of mind during the direct perception of emptiness just because they are not the object of the direct perception of emptiness. Let me see.

Okay. Got it? You can't see Stanley while Stanley is seeing emptiness directly, because Stanley is not emptiness.

But that doesn't mean there's no Stanley there.

[Speaker 2]
But isn't the definition of an existing thing a valid perception?

[Speaker 1]
Now, someone else is going to ... Adam is going to tell you why that doesn't prove anything. What's that?

She said ... She said ...

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Because a Buddha is watching you see emptiness directly. Therefore, your subject state of mind does exist at that time. You can't, unless you're a Buddhist.

[Speaker 2]
No, a Buddhist. A Buddhist accepts ...

[Speaker 1]
A Buddhist ... You can't ... This is not a proof to a person who's not a Buddhist.

But within ... Among Buddhists ... What do you call that?

Among friends.

[Speaker 2]
But it's still interpretive, right? Because it's not about emptiness directly. No.

[Speaker 1]
The subject state of mind exists during the direct perception of emptiness. One valid reason you can give among Buddhists only is that it is perceived by a Buddha sitting across the street.

[Speaker 2]
Because of authority.

[Speaker 1]
It's scriptural authority.

[Speaker 2]
But he's also giving you logic to see it, which is a type of tsemo, which means it exists. He's giving you a reason, a jepa tsemo, of the arya's mind in the direct perception of emptiness, which means it exists.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, right. Because in the purpose of the conversation. The logic that ...

Sorry.

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
Well, if we can't see emptiness in our waking life without being in the direct perception of emptiness, it doesn't mean that emptiness doesn't exist.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
So therefore, it's like the reverse can be true. Like when you're in Buddha perception, we're not seeing emptiness directly now, we can see it logically.

[Speaker 2]
So he can't see himself directly then, but we can see logically that he's there.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, so the time is up. You ready? Here we go.

Let's do the next sentence. Let's do the next sentence. I always want to do the next sentence, because I understand it.

I mean, I understand the first half.

[Speaker 2]
Uh...

[Speaker 1]
You can put some dollars on it.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
MIG SHES KYI NGUR Give me NGUR. NGOS LA Yeah, to... To the appearance.

What presents itself to visual consciousness. What presents itself to visual consciousness. Among all the stuff in the universe which presents itself to your visual consciousness, DRA MED Yeah, sounds don't.

Sounds don't appear to your visual consciousness, okay? But that doesn't prove there's no sound in the universe. Right, right, right, right.

Okay? Just because something can't appear, cannot possibly appear, to a state of mind, doesn't mean that thing doesn't exist. What's he talking about?

He's gonna say that just because you're not seeing subject and object in the direct perception of emptiness, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, good.

[Speaker 1]
And specifically among subject and object. The mind of an Arya in the direct perception of emptiness.

[Speaker 2]
Subject.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, subject. Okay, got it? Yep.

That'd be such a nice place to stop. Let's stop there. Okay.

Okay, because it's convenient for me.

[Speaker 2]
Such a good text. Thanks, Geshe-la.

[Speaker 1]
So what did we learn? Just because you can't see your own mind during the direct... You can't even be aware of your own mind during the direct perception of emptiness, doesn't mean you aren't having a mind in that moment.

Right. So some people went too far in identifying... There's a thing called...

There's a thing called overdoing your gaccha. There's a thing you're going to study someday called underdoing your gaccha and overdoing your gaccha. Your gaccha's too big or your gaccha's too small.

Right now he is...

[Speaker 2]
Overdoing his gaccha. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
You don't see self-existent things, and you see that there's... I'll let you see. Yeah.

Things which come from their own side are cancelled, and your mind is too... The gaccha got too big. Alright?

That's a Madhyamika discussion. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Sashi...

[Speaker 1]
Kewa... Di kewo kun Sanam yeshe tsotsok shing Sanam yeshe le tung we Taba kun yi to par sho