Классика Алмазного огранщика: Верхний Срединный путь — Великие книги мудрости, занятие 12

[Speaker 1]
Okay, uh, this text is the hardest one, because I didn't start words yet. But, uh, it's extremely difficult, so I would like to review for you guys where we are. Because otherwise it's, like, impossible.

So, I'm going to go quickly through the meaning so far. Uh, we're going to examine whether a person who's seeing emptiness directly has a mind at that moment or not. Okay?

Uh, if you say they do have a mind, okay? Uh, and you say, uh, if they do, then it must have nāma. It must have, uh, some kind of, what do you call it?

It must appear.

[Speaker 2]
It must, uh, the implication is a self-existent nāma.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? It must be seeing things through images. Okay?

Which, according to that person, means they can't be seeing emptiness.

[Speaker 2]
You see?

[Speaker 1]
Uh, so if you say, uh, if they do have a state of mind at that time, then they would have to be having some kind of discursive thought. Uh, he says, then, you don't understand the slightest whiff of Madhyamika, and I'm not wasting my time with you. Okay, got it?

Trisam. Trisam. Okay.

Huh? Slightest whiff. Trisam.

Chitsam, yeah. Chitsam. You didn't, you don't have the tiniest taste of Madhyamika.

I'm not wasting my time. Okay? And now I'm going to talk about it.

If you think there's something wrong with having a mind during the direct ascension to emptiness, because that mind would have to be operating in the normal world. Okay. Go away.

Okay, got it? Now, let's examine the more interesting question, which is people who say you don't have a mind at that time. Okay?

What did the last guy say? You have, but if you have, you must be using normal stuff. Discursive stuff.

Normal stuff. Come on. You go away.

Now, let's, these are more interesting, these other guys that say, no, your mind turns off during the direct ascension. Has to. Must.

That's more interesting. Let's talk about that. And there's the chepa that means examination.

So, Nela went to Gyurpananda. So, you know, you just had this manifest reality. Emptiness, the way things are, has become manifest reality to you, okay?

As if you were pouring water into water. Okay? And...

Or Mar-la-mar chepa. And the mind has... the mind has...

what do you call that? Merged.

[Speaker 2]
Merged.

[Speaker 1]
The mind has merged with emptiness completely. Dissolved. Okay?

So... Therefore, there cannot be mind at that time. Okay?

Alright? Oh, well... Okay.

Then, why doesn't the emptiness dissolve into the mind?

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
You say the mind dissolves into the emptiness, so there's no mind. How about we just say the emptiness dissolves into the mind? There you are.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, right. So now... Okay.

So forget that.

[Speaker 1]
Don't tell me the merge thing. Okay? I'm not interested.

Welcome. Thank you. Nice dress.

Johan Chisholm, if you don't mind. So then he says, now look. Did the guy have a state of mind at the...

at the last minute before he saw emptiness? Did he have a state of mind or not? Was his mind working or not?

Yes. Okay. And you want me to believe that there's no result of that state of mind?

Okay. Okay. And the guy says, yeah.

That's what I say. And he says, okay. Is that a maingak or a maegak?

[Speaker 2]
Maegak.

[Speaker 1]
That's a maegak. Something's missing. Something's gone.

Is something self-existent missing? I mean... No.

No, the mind is not self... The mind is the normal thing. Right.

Right? The absence of a banana is not emptiness. Okay?

That's just a banana.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
The absence of something which is self-existent is emptiness. Right. But the absence of just a normal thing?

Come on. You know, that's emptiness? So, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Okay. Well, he says, the last state of mind of the person at Joramang?

Yeah. Yeah, that exists, and the next minute, there's nothing. Okay?

So, are you telling me that's why it's emptiness? Because it came from something stopping? And he says, yeah.

He says, well, how about, you know, the last time you got pissed off at your friend?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
That also came from the finishing of the moment before. Right. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Is that, is being pissed off at your friend a direct possession of emptiness? Or stopping, stopping?

[Speaker 2]
Come on.

[Speaker 1]
You know, okay? It has come into being from the stopping of the moment before.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
So, it's all things that come into being from the stopping of the moment before is the direct possession of emptiness? Come on. Every moment of mind is the stopping of the moment before.

There's nothing special about that. Okay? This is Guilt Subject.

Okay. No! You can't use normal logic.

We're not talking about the normal state of mind. This state of mind has never happened before. He says, okay, we'll take the second moment of being pissed off at your friend.

That also never happened before. Okay? Like, Guilt Subject's having fun with this guy.

Okay? By the way, it's very difficult. I can't.

So, also, then that guy doesn't have a state of mind. So, why... Karwa means, why do you think the I is something special?

The guy who was pissed off at his friend for the second moment also didn't have a state of mind before. Why you make a big deal about the I's state of mind when this other guy had the same thing? He had a unique state of mind.

Got it? Never happened before, right? Because that was yesterday.

Okay, got it? Okay.

[Speaker 2]
This is nice.

[Speaker 1]
So, okay, la, ni sanawa ilo yu na, pape nyam shay na yam, tawa ilo, chi chin mi sha. If a normal person can have a mind that's discursive, then... I don't understand this one, do you?

Well, yeah, I mean, I think that I came to a clear understanding of it here. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
If a normal person has a screwed up mind, then shouldn't an Ari in that state have a mind that isn't screwed up?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Who's saying that? We are.

Yeah, that's our position.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, okay.

[Speaker 1]
He does have a mind, but it's not screwed up. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
He's like, why do you have to say there's no mind at all? It's different because he has a non-screwed up mind.

[Speaker 1]
But don't say he doesn't have any mind at all. Okay, I'll buy that.

[Speaker 2]
If there's a screwed up mind, there should be a non-screwed up mind. And wouldn't it be this guy?

[Speaker 1]
And just because something is a mind, doesn't mean it has to be screwed up. Right, right, right. Okay?

That's disconnected. Because then there couldn't be a direct perception of MD. Well, derpa mepa means, you know, what you say is irrelevant.

Where's the connection? Right, right. Okay?

Then according to you, anytime someone is in, it should be okay to refer to the state of mind of a direct perception of emptiness as having discrepancy. Discrepancy.

[Speaker 2]
Because that's what we call a mind.

[Speaker 1]
Because we call it mind. Now this is very famous. The Madhyamaka Avatara says that the causes for a Buddha, the opening verses of the Madhyamaka Avatara say the causes for a Buddha include ninje sem, compassion, and nisumelo.

The state of mind beyond duality.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
The state of mind beyond duality. So don't tell me that Buddhists believe there's no state of mind beyond duality. And Chandrakirti's wrong.

Because Chandrakirti said these are one of the two big causes of a Buddha. The mind, lo. He used the same word.

Okay? Got it? Yeah.

Don't tell me. Nisumelo. Now somebody says...

lo yu na yu yang ke len gupe If they have a mind, they must have an object in the mind. Then they haven't put to rest the habit of the mind to have an object. Duality.

They haven't put to rest duality. And you hear this a lot by lamas or people who haven't been trained well. And the object, the goal of seeing emptiness is to have no duality.

So according to this guy, wrong idea, he says, well if they're seeing something during the path of seeing, then there must be duality. But duality doesn't mean that. Duality doesn't mean there's no subject and no object.

It doesn't mean that. Right? What does duality mean?

[Speaker 2]
It means no awareness. Things look different than they are. Discrepancy.

[Speaker 1]
Illusion. There's no difference between the way it is and the way it seems. That's what it means, no duality.

It doesn't mean there's no two things. It doesn't mean there's no subject and object. That's not what no duality means in the path of seeing.

It doesn't mean no subject, no object. It means the way the subject, it's the way the object appears and the way it is match. There's no discrepancy.

Got it? I haven't looked at his translation. Geshe-la, in verse 80, just look at this one word with us maybe.

They use sik instead of tong. Yeah. And I use, I translate it like while it is true that there are no such things as subjects and objects beheld by a realized being.

I like that. That's okay. Because I couldn't He's trying to be polite to Arius.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Right. I thought about it for a while trying to figure out a word that would sound right there. Nick's pointing out that they have used the honorific word for tong.

Like generosity. Sik, like generosity. Avalokiteshvara.

Avaloka. Loka. Looking down.

So, yeah. I'll buy that. Now, then, he also says, how can you say that because there's no duality in the way you perceive emptiness directly that there's no subject and object?

How can you say that? You can't use non-duality to say there's no object and no subject. It's not logical.

Why? Because the fact that sound doesn't appear to your eye doesn't prove there's no sound.

[Speaker 2]
It's pretty cool. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Besides that, everybody, yabse, who's the yabse here? In this case, it's Nagarjuna and Aryadeva. Yeah, Nagarjuna and Aryadeva, whose texts we're commenting on.

I have a question about this, too. I footnoted it earlier in the text that it was Nagarjuna and Aryadeva. Should I then just, like, not footnote it again?

In this case, I did. To me, it'd be a lot sexier to... I did again this time.

I don't think they said it directly, by the way. I don't know if I would use quotation marks. I would go try to find where they said something like that, which is not an easy exercise.

In this text, find where he said it? I don't think it's in this text. It's not a quotation.

I doubt that it's a quotation. Oh, yeah, right.

[Speaker 2]
I see what you're saying.

[Speaker 1]
They have described how. It's not a direct quotation. So, I mean, if you're really feeling brave, go check all of Nagarjuna's works.

If it were me, I might look for the word yo-yo-chen, you know? I mean, you can try. I don't know if it's worth it.

It could be just, it's generally known that they said that. But if you want to be... I'm not going through your translation yet.

I'm just trying to get these guys up to speed. So, you want to say that if the Arya's wisdom doesn't see something, it must not exist. They also don't see pizza.

Okay? So this pizza does not exist. You can't say anything which isn't seen by the Arya in the direct perception engine that doesn't exist.

Pizza chicha. Okay? I'm not getting hungry.

Then, you know, you want to talk about which takes precedence, right? Ultimate perception or... Right.

Conventional perception. That's ridiculous. I'm going to cover it later.

Oh, we're getting close. Well, if the person has a state of mind during the direct perception emptiness, then, during the path, the path, tsen dzin. Now, I like tsen dzin.

Yeah, yeah. And it's a difficult word, okay? Tsen means science.

Like, what's tsen dam pe che? Tsen dam pe che. Science of a Buddha?

You are hot. Yeah, science of a Buddha. So tsen dzin means...

Holding, grasping to... To science. I mean, literally, it's grasping to science.

I wrote grasping to indications of things that's coming from their own side. That's also even better. Indications is better.

But I challenge you to consider that it might mean that anything has anything inside of it. That anything has any quality at all.

[Speaker 2]
That aspirin has any...

[Speaker 1]
That aspirin has any ability to take away the headache. I would suggest that that's tsen dzin. To look at an aspirin and think it could do something is tsen dzin.

Is to believe that it has a quality. Okay? Nowadays, I'm going this way.

And, you know, people evolve. I don't translate the way I translated 30 years ago. You know?

And I... Right now, in my, you know, ripe old age, things happen to me all the time. I get new and understanding stuff.

And I'm just thinking it might be useful to somehow call it to see things in things. You see what I mean? Okay.

I'll make a note for myself to change it. To believe that an aspirin has anything in it. The word in, to me, is ten times more powerful than the word self-existent.

There's no in the aspirin. Is there anything in the aspirin? Because to believe there is is tsen dzin.

To hold to an indicator. Okay? To hold that it has some quality.

[Speaker 2]
But there's a nick in the nick.

[Speaker 1]
That's another story. Are you grasping the indications of things as existing in and of themselves, or in themselves? I'm not going there yet.

Alright. That's your problem.

[Speaker 2]
This is the last one, so what happened here now? This is the one we were building up.

[Speaker 1]
Well, you know, any state of mind is believing that there's something inside of something.

[Speaker 2]
A quality inside of something.

[Speaker 1]
Who said that? Jack Kimball.

[Speaker 2]
Huasheng. Huasheng.

[Speaker 1]
The Chinese method.

[Speaker 2]
Huasheng. Huasheng.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, got it? That's it. That's as far as we got.

[Speaker 2]
Pay attention.

[Speaker 1]
Don't eat. What? You can eat, but pay attention.

Don't distract everybody. Focus. You're about to get enlightened.

You can eat later. What, mine? Buddha doesn't have to eat, so think of all the money you're going to save.

No, I'm just kidding.

[Speaker 2]
You're welcome to eat, but pay attention.

[Speaker 1]
You're welcome to eat, but pay attention. I'm going to have my brown drink. So that's where we stopped it.

Okay? Some guy said if you did have a mind when you're seeing emptiness directly, it would have to be holding that things had things inside them. Because any time you have a mind, according to this person, any time you have a state of mind, any state of mind, is already thinking that there's something inside of things.

What is that in Tibetan? Is there a capital? Okay.

No matter what the mind holds, it is believing there's something in that object.

[Speaker 2]
That's crazy.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Okay. The people who support this view, or this kyong means to maintain a view.

Okay. This kyong literally means to protect, but as a verb, it means to maintain a view, sustain a view, or something like that. It can mean to protect.

Kyokyong. Dharma protector. But dawak kyong means to keep up a viewpoint, to sustain a viewpoint.

Who is that? Gyakkemo. This Chinese master from the past.

Okay? He always gets picked on. I'm sure in the Chinese text the Tibetan guy is picked on.

Okay. So, here's term three. All right.

And this is where we're going to go. So the basic, where we are, is we're trying to deal with someone who says that if there was a subject state of mind during the direct perception emptiness, it would have to be thinking that its object had something in it. Okay.

All states of mind according to this viewpoint. Okay? Here we go.

Read. Differentiate between these two Ts. The second one is aspirated.

Not tar, right? Tar. Tar.

Tar te. Tar te. Tar te.

Sorry, I'm just trying to get it down. Nyam len yang te kona te-a. Nyam len yang te kona tar ngyur.

Tar. Tar. Tar.

Tar. Tar ngyur gu te. You need a good Chinese name.

Tenzin nampa kuntu gakpa re. Should I keep going? Yeah, yeah.

Okay, now let's stop there. Tawa yai kempo tar pe na. What's that pe?

Pe.

[Speaker 2]
It's not easy.

[Speaker 1]
Usually it's mi te. Aha, incorrect.

[Speaker 2]
So it's correct.

[Speaker 1]
So rarely is it used without the mi. If that viewpoint was correct.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
If according to that master it's correct. We could just practice like that. Yeah, then you should practice that way.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
If you're going to buy his view, then you should try to practice that way too. Black, black, black. Now listen.

If that's what's happening when you see emptiness directly, then you should use that same methodology as you are preparing to see emptiness directly. Okay? If it's true, okay, what he said about that every state of mind sees something inside of things, okay, and he says that's why you don't have a state of mind when you see emptiness, then as you're practicing to get to that point, you should be following the same viewpoint.

Okay? It's subtle. It's tough.

Okay? If you're good, you'd have to use the same viewpoint. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Okay? Sen jin nam pa kun du kap pa rik. And then it would be this rik means correct.

And I made a note to myself because I struggled with it. That would be the correct way. It doesn't mean type or class.

It doesn't mean that. It means correct. Then that would be the correct way to stop all...

No, it would be rik pa, to guard. To stop?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
That's what I thought I said.

[Speaker 2]
All senses.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. All forms of senses. To stop all, yeah.

You could never have a normal state of mind about anything, according to you, while you're getting ready to see emptiness directly. Yeah. Okay?

But Geshe-la has explained the pen to you.

[Speaker 2]
The incorrect stop mind.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, stop your mind, man. Yeah. Because you're trying to get there.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Stop seeing anything. Yeah. Okay?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
If you think that's the goal, it should also be the path. Uh-huh. Yeah.

As you're getting ready to see emptiness, and people are explaining the pen to you, you should never think the pen is anything. You shouldn't think the guy explaining it has any qualities. You shouldn't think the pen has any qualities.

You shouldn't think the table has any qualities, the chair. Okay?

[Speaker 2]
Uh-huh.

[Speaker 1]
Because according to you, it's always wrong to have a normal state of mind.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Uh-huh.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, got it?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Uh-huh. What it means is while someone's explaining the pen to you, you are misunderstanding it.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Which might be true. No, it's always true. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
All the time. Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. When I got the pen, I'm saying, this is coming from you. You are looking at it and saying, yeah, the pen which comes this way is coming from me.

I understand.

[Speaker 2]
You see?

[Speaker 1]
Your mind is, even after seeing emptiness directly, when you come out, it still looks that way. So as Geshe-la is explaining the pen for the 2,000th time, during that time, you still believe it's coming this way, and you are still using a conventional state of mind. Okay?

So hopefully, using wrong states of mind, you get to a correct state of mind. Okay? That's an important concept in this page.

But he's being sarcastic, isn't he? Yeah, he's saying, okay, according to you, he should use not seeing... he should use seeing emptiness to see emptiness.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
Right, and that's... Okay? No normal state of mind is allowed.

Okay? According to you. Uh-huh.

The disjunctive key. The disjunctive key, yeah. Yeah, but...

Even social care works. Yeah, even people who haven't seen emptiness directly. Holding to things.

Tsenzin, Nyamlen... They practice. ...practice to get there. Yeah. In which they are... Still holding to things.

...believing things have something in them. Yeah. Laklen, til means this.

[Speaker 2]
Palm of your hand.

[Speaker 1]
Til is the palm of your hand. And til techepa means make it your main practice. It's called palm practice.

Okay? Laklen til means... Laklen til means make it your heart practice.

Make it the essence of your practice. So til in scripture means make it your number one practice. Uh-huh.

Okay. Their number one practice is what? Uh, practicing that...

[Speaker 2]
Tsenzin.

[Speaker 1]
...with that kind of holding to things wrong.

[Speaker 2]
Seeing things.

[Speaker 1]
Grasping to indications of things. The whole process. During the aspiration of pen, the essence of their practice is they think...

They are depending on the state of mind. Okay? They have to use this state of mind.

It's all they have. It's all they have. So what do you want to cancel everything up to Jorla?

You know? Up to Tomo, right? They need to use that state of mind.

But that state of mind is fucked up. Yeah, I know, but they need to use it. They need something.

They need to use it. It's defective. I know.

It's the only one they have. Got it? It's very cool.

Don't say you can't use it. What are they going to do? Go to bed?

It's all they have to use. You know? Don't tell them they can't use that.

It's... And he even calls it... It's their heart practice.

It's to use this defective state of mind to figure out that it's wrong. Got it? It's very beautiful.

It's really weird. According to you, it would be in every way wrong. Not just incorrect.

It would be totally, completely, 100% wrong for them to think about the pen. Because they're messed up. Their mind is messed up.

Got it? It's powerful. Is it being sarcastic?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, yeah, totally sarcastic.

[Speaker 1]
According to you, they should go to the beach and give up. Yeah. Because they can't...

They don't have any other tool to use. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's got to be cool, man.

Be a flower. So, when they are thinking about the pen, what kind of dingy hustle when they are looking at the pen... Dingy?

[Speaker 2]
Yes. Manifest...

[Speaker 1]
Mental image? The mental image? Yeah.

Pen. Okay. Jita char.

This is a form of the verb char. Oh. To rise?

Yeah. Appears? What kind of...

Yeah, yeah. What kind of general idea comes up in their mind? What kind of dingy comes up in their mind?

Okay. Oh. We would teach it with the metaphor.

Base. Through the metaphor. Example related...

By the way, did you recently have any base? Yeah. Oh, examples?

Or metaphors? Yeah, I'm going to throw something at somebody. Do we have this...

Does base sound familiar to anybody? Yeah. Signs.

Martian signs. Baegu.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, the nine lions? The lion's dance. Yes.

[Speaker 1]
I've got a headache. Nine... Come on, come on.

[Speaker 2]
Today?

[Speaker 1]
Remember, it was a long time ago.

[Speaker 2]
Today? It must have been.

[Speaker 1]
Geshe Michael talked about it for ten days. Five days. You had nine base recently.

The lion's dance? Lion's dance. Messages.

Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, yeah. Kamalashvili.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, that's Kamalashvili. Yeah. Diamond Cutter Studio.

I talked about it all day for five days. I still don't remember that word.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. What's the bay here? Namka.

Sky. Sky. Okay.

Like sky.

[Speaker 2]
Metaphor is like the sky.

[Speaker 1]
This is called Namkatabu. It's also a name for lion's dance level... Five.

Five. Namkataye. Infinite space.

Namkatabu. So, sometimes, the direct perception of emptiness is called Namkatabu. Space-like.

Don't confuse it with Namkataye, which means infinite space, which is the lowest formless form of emptiness. Not the same. So, the other guy, he's saying, Yeah, space-like, man.

Sum nam tathaki. Wemba means... Far away.

You can say wemba or you can say emba. I never heard that one. It's a dumb cut.

Wemba. But you're supposed to move your mouth. Wemba.

A far off place. Famous Lama named...

[Speaker 2]
Wensapa.

[Speaker 1]
Wensapa.

[Speaker 2]
Wensapa.

[Speaker 1]
And Sapa. Okay. Which means out in the middle of nowhere.

Yeah. Isolated. Bui.

Bui.

[Speaker 2]
Bui.

[Speaker 1]
Bui is wemba. Mexico, man. Okay, wemba.

Tathak means all and every. It's like tantric, but it's stronger. Much stronger.

Okay. Each and every. Wemba.

Sum na. Now, in the Vajradhini sadhana, there's a sum dzin gyi chi shi. The vines that bind?

Yeah. The two vines of what? Grasp.

[Speaker 2]
Grasping and what is grasped.

[Speaker 1]
Grasping and what is grasped. Yeah. In the poetry of the sadhana, okay, why does it say vines?

Because it refers to the two side channels. Okay. And they are called vines.

Vine is this plant which grows around things. Okay. And it grows around the central channel.

So it's called the two vines. Okay. The left one is responsible for...

Desire.

[Speaker 2]
Ignorance. Sin.

[Speaker 1]
Sin or dzin? Dzin or sum? Dzin.

Dzin being number. So say dzin nam. Dzin nam.

Sum nam. Sum nam. Dzin nam.

[Speaker 2]
Dzin nam.

[Speaker 1]
Sum nam.

[Speaker 2]
Sum nam.

[Speaker 1]
Dzin nam means the aspect of the subject. Sum nam means the aspect of the object. Oh, cool.

And we misunderstand both. And it's related to yoga. It's related to the two side channels, which is which.

I think this one, to your left, is your dzin. It's your subject. Subject.

Vine. And then the right one is the sum nam.

[Speaker 2]
Your object. Male.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, sounds right. Okay. What do you call it if you manage to throw off those two?

Avadhuti.

[Speaker 2]
Avadhuti.

[Speaker 1]
Shake it off. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
It's my reputation.

[Speaker 1]
Name for the central channel. Avadhuti. Avadhuti.

Throw off those two side channels. That's why you do yoga. It loosens those two side channels.

Shake it off. One is responsible for misunderstanding subjects, and one is responsible for misunderstanding objects, which is kind of the two great divisions of emptiness. Yeah.

People and things. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Alright. So according to him, wow, look, Buddha talked about space-like man. No, no, no sum nams.

No objects. Alright. No object aspect to things.

Uh-huh. Okay. Number, sum, sum way number.

Okay. Okay. Uh-huh.

So how are you going to get anything coming up in your mind if space-like means no object?

[Speaker 2]
No objects.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. So then what are you going to use for Dunchy? Uh-huh.

How could you possibly have an object in your mind? Yeah. A mental image in your mind.

What do you use for mental image in a world where it's wrong to hold to something? Geshe-la, what does wenpa mean here? Wenpa means tomba.

Uh-huh.

[Speaker 2]
Got rid of?

[Speaker 1]
Devoid of. Devoid of? Completely devoid of.

So you've got to find some very powerful word because normally it means to go out in the middle of the desert and do a three-year retreat. Right, right. Okay.

Normally it means go to a totally empty place without anything. Uh-huh. So wenpa means that.

But as a verb. Yeah. Empty of.

It's a very powerful Tibetan word for devoid.

[Speaker 2]
Uh-huh.

[Speaker 1]
Devoid of. Okay. What?

Each and every sungnam. Not just sungnams. He didn't say sungnam kittong.

Uh-huh. He said sungnam thadakiramba. Uh-huh.

Completely devoid of any object of the mind. Like space. Uh-huh.

You know, the Buddha said. Okay. All right?

Yeah. Now it looks like it might be a reference to something in the text and I checked and it's not.

[Speaker 2]
In the root text? Not in the root text. It's not there in the text.

[Speaker 1]
It's just a general reference to what the Buddha called nam kathabuddhim. It's just Joseph J. Riffin.

Yeah. I checked because I was curious. Okay?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you. So, we asked him. Well, okay.

When you're in the direct procession emptiness, what are you using for Dunchy? Oh, nothing. Okay?

That's why it's called empty space. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

Okay. All right. Now, I want to point out something that I feel about his style, Joseph J.'s style. Sampajao. He will say Sampajao, which means, you think about it. Yeah.

Okay? And he does it a couple of times already and I have a feeling he's going to keep doing it. Uh-huh.

And it's the imperative tense of think. Okay. You think about it.

You think about it. It's almost that he's angry or challenging the other guy. Okay.

Okay. That's okay. But you just think about one thing, okay?

Just think about one thing. What? Okay.

Then there's Ngopomawa. Who's in Ngopomawa? The functionalists.

Yeah. Yeah. Who's in Ngopomawa?

They're called functionalists. Things are based on their causes and conditions. That's how you described it in ACI Course 1.

[Speaker 2]
That's better.

[Speaker 1]
Say that again. Things are ultimate if they function. We were talking about this.

You can say it the other way. is that gas, gasoline, does have something in it that doesn't. They believe that.

Because it performs a function. They refuse to believe that what makes an aspirin work is coming from me. They say, okay, you can talk about projection.

You can talk about mind. You can talk about names. You can talk about karmic seeds.

That's okay. But in the end, there's something in gas that's not in water that gets your car to boom up. Okay?

They're like, come on, get real. So they're called functionalists. They believe fire is hot.

Nobody put the heat in fire. And it would be impossible to have a fire that wasn't hot. Therefore, it would be impossible to walk on water.

In their school. That's not the nature of water. Water has something inside it that makes it sinkable.

Sink in a bowl. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, now, one of their popular viewpoints of the highest school of the Lupa Molas.

How many schools of the four ancient schools are in Lupa Molas? Three. Good.

What's the highest of the three?

[Speaker 2]
Manong.

[Speaker 1]
Which of the six flavors of emptiness belongs to this? Three. Yeah.

Well, give me one of them. The one where the subject and object are coming from. Are empty of not coming from the same thing.

So, my lonely school. Big, big, big, big idea. The next time you meet an irritating person, just remember they are splitting off of a single thing.

And created you and them. Who put you in the room? You.

Who put them in the room? You. Who put you in the room?

You. The subject and the object split off from the same thing. Okay.

Well, I guess they're all wrong. I guess they're not a Buddhist school. Because they accept sunam and zinam.

They accept an aspect of subject and they accept an aspect of object. In fact, they spend their whole life explaining why they come from the same seed. But according to you, they're all wrong.

I understand. You think about it. Honey, honey, go home and think about it.

So, that's what he's saying. Yeah, he's saying it to these guys. Okay, I understand.

There's no... The mind doesn't have a... Yeah, there's no zinam.

There's no separate object side of it. There's no separate subject side of it. It's like those three schools of Buddhism for 2,000 years talk about that.

Yeah, I guess they're just messed up. You think about it. He's like that, okay?

You just think about it. He doesn't say, you know, you're contradicting 2,000 years of 75% of all Buddhist schools. He just says, could you go home, honey, and just think about it?

Okay? Zinam, den la yang. So, when they talk about a zinam, a subject aspect of things, of the mind, it has a unique...

tumu mayin bu denchu. Not shared. Some kind of unique image of the mind.

How can that appear in their mind? You go home and think about it, honey. Yeah, yeah.

Okay? How can they have any object appear in their mind? Any archetype.

I'm sorry, who is he referring to? You know, just those schools of Buddhism. How they function in general.

So, these are the guys who believe, dupa, in these two things. They're always separating the aspect of the object and the aspect of what is... of the subject, sunam and zinam.

You know, they spend their whole life talking about it. Yeah, and you know, and they talk about, you know, unique mental images that come up in the mind. Just think about it, man.

You know, what's happening according to you? He doesn't say you're an idiot. He says, you go home and think about it.

Okay?

[Speaker 2]
That's Gyatso Jei's style.

[Speaker 1]
Uh, Your problem, honey, is that you haven't spent any time with the Mahayana books. Okay? Who did he say that to?

Chakrachuky Senge, who wrote a 12-volume commentary on the Prajnaparamita. Your problem, man, is you haven't spent any time with the Mahayana. Who said that?

[Speaker 2]
Gyatso Jei said that? Whoa.

[Speaker 1]
That's hilarious.

[Speaker 2]
It is, honey.

[Speaker 1]
This guy writes a 12-volume commentary on the Prajnaparamita. Your problem is you ain't spent any time studying. That's his style.

Classy. That's Gyatso Jei. That's pretty cool.

He should work in a bar, right? It's 1.32, guys. Oh, man, come on.

One more line. And Nodi has this style of saying, he's going to do it again in about a page.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Now, there's an expression, nyong-tsam.

[Speaker 2]
Nyong-tsam.

[Speaker 1]
Nyong-tsam means just an experience. Nyong-tsam. As opposed to?

Experienced. Okay? Just an experiencer.

Oh, er. Just an experiencer. As opposed to?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. The experience without the experiencer?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, the emphasis is on the experiencer. Just the experience. Oh.

Just the experience. Now, apparently the other guy said, wait a minute. Isn't there this thing in scripture about nyong-tsam?

Uh-huh. You know, the simple experience? Uh-huh.

What do you call it? Raw experience. Okay.

Okay? The raw experience. Wait, isn't there this thing in scripture about the raw experience?

You know, and he says, come on. That just means, mainly tanya-tsam. Something which exists nominally.

Okay? That it doesn't mean there's no object of experience. Especially in the direct intersection of emptiness.

Or that there's no holder. Okay? It doesn't mean that.

When you say simple experience, it doesn't imply there's no something.

[Speaker 2]
Uh-huh.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? It just means that that experience is nominal.

[Speaker 2]
Uh-huh.

[Speaker 1]
It's coming through seeds. Okay. Like the middle way.

Raw experience doesn't mean, it doesn't mean there's no subject state of mind in that moment.

[Speaker 2]
Uh-huh.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? Uh-huh. It never meant that.

Uh-huh. Okay? Don't quote me that.

Uh-huh.

[Speaker 2]
Don't stress that.

[Speaker 1]
Don't say, well, raw experience. It just happens.

[Speaker 2]
Uh-huh.

[Speaker 1]
It's just an experience. You know? Especially with reference to...

Subject and object. Direct intersection of emptiness. Don't give me that.

Yeah. And if you study all the nyong-sams in scripture, which I did, because I was like, what the hell is he talking about?

[Speaker 2]
Uh-huh.

[Speaker 1]
Uh... There are several conversations about how it means that the thing is coming from your seeds. Uh-huh.

You see, sam here means tiny sam. Uh-huh. It's coming only from your seeds.

[Speaker 2]
Uh-huh.

[Speaker 1]
It doesn't exist ultimately.

[Speaker 2]
Uh-huh.

[Speaker 1]
Tiny. But sam here, just, means just your seeds opening. It doesn't mean there can be an experience with no experiencer.

Right. Okay, because he's trying to say, specifically, tonglam. Yeah.

It's just... The mind is gone. Uh-huh.

There's no experiencer.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
There's just the raw experience. Right. You know, it just happens.

Right. You know, he said, but wait, scripture says, just happens. He said, don't give me that.

Uh-huh. Okay? When he says, just then, it actually means the opposite.

Yeah. It's coming from your seeds. Uh-huh.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. He said, don't give me that, just an, don't give me that, just an experience. Yeah, come on.

Okay? Yep. Got it?

Yep. And I went and found you some nyongtzams. Cool.

But I don't like them too much. Uh, I found better ones that I didn't write them down. Oh.

So, we can almost erase this part. I'm going to erase this part, because it's not relevant. Examples of raw experience.

I did find a nyongtzam. A cool one. Oh, where they said it is tiny.

Uh, let's leave it for now. But anyway, I'm not going there. Uh, this is a different discussion of Nagarjuna.

Okay? Oh, cool. Um.

We should probably stop, Keshla, because we've got to get down to class downstairs. Okay. And you have to get home.

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
And you have to get home. I'm going to get home.

[Speaker 1]
Uh, anyway, he's going to attempt a response. Okay? The other guy's going to attempt a response.

Cool. Yeah, and by the way, within a page, Gyaltsarjay's going to use something later in the text to prove he's wrong. To prove to prove who's wrong?

Hershagin's wrong? He's going to use Nagarjuna. He's going to use Nagarjuna's sixty verses Oh.

to prove that the guy who's commenting on the sixty verses has made a mistake. He's going to give a a refutation. By quoting the sixty verses.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
To dispute an interpretation of the sixty verses. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, got it?

Yeah. That's kind of a cute thing he would do. Okay.

Okay. Thank you, Geshe-la. That's great.

Because he was kind It's like Isaac Newton. That's cool. Thanks, Kishore.