Классика Алмазного огранщика: Верхний Срединный путь — Великие книги мудрости, занятие 14

[Speaker 2]
Okay, sashipukhi jukshing me tokcham rirabling shi nyamde gyanpadi sangye shindhu mikte uvargi jokun namda shingla drupar shok idam guru ratnamandala kam niryatayami sangye chidam sokhi choknam la jangchu bardu dakmi khyap suchi dakhi chunyen gyipe sunam ki jola bhenchir sangye drupar shok sangye chidam sokhi choknam la jangchu bardu dakmi khyap suchi dakhi chunyen gyipe sunam ki jola bhenchir sangye drupar shok sangye chidam sokhi choknam la jangchu bardu dakmi khyap suchi dakhi chunyen gyipe sunam ki jola bhenchir sangye drupar shok

[Speaker 1]
I just want to review what we did last time because it's so complex you know you gotta slow down when it's when it's deep you slow down when it's easy you speed up like Adam's text we're just going through it because it's just pancakes at this point it's just pancakes later when it gets tough we slow down so this is i have a feeling this is someplace where we should slow down uh just for my own peace of mind also so we think we think you know what do you call it conditionally provisionally uh we think this means yeah no problem he says no problem no we say no problem he's being sarcastic well let's go here uh somebody said de tar na therefore okay given that de dzin nam in the mind at that point meaning

[Speaker 2]
uh in the direct perception yeah during the direct perception

[Speaker 1]
there is there is a a subject aspect okay and i can't think of a you could say coloration of the mind or something like that but it's a difficult word it comes in the tsung deng na what are tsung deng na the five relationship the five ways in which the mental functions are related to the mind at any given time like when you have anger towards your husband you're having an argument so there's a there's a perception of your husband a rap just perception of husband and linked with it there's a feeling about the husband so two two mental functions are going on what is you can say attention just attention no good or bad and that's required to have anger you see otherwise you would be alone in your room and you'd be angry at something so i'm not i'm not saying it's happening i'm just saying this is an example that we use in dci about the second husband and emptiness we use it in the ukraine they could we spent a whole day on emptiness they didn't understand anything the second morning we did the two husbands and they were like ah okay now i understand it was the largest audience ever in for one day between in europe and then the second day they were all noticeably relieved because we just talked about husbands anyway uh so data not there okay so they they were originally saying that during the direct perception of emptiness there is no state of mind the mind the subject state of mind is canceled canceled and just you just like pouring water into water you are one with the object and there's no more awareness at all actually there's no awareness of me right uh and there's no awareness of the event but uh as a separate thing but there's still awareness of emptiness okay so now now somebody is saying okay well there is an awareness okay there is a subject state of mind which here is called it's a holder coloration okay or holder aspect okay should i'm sorry so when you're upset at your husband there has to be part of your mind which is aware of the husband and then there's part of your mind which is upset and they have to be linked in five ways they are called then by the by the basis they're yeah both relying on the eye consciousness right they're both using the window of the eye to to do their thing okay so they are linked we call linked or they are equal in that respect their duration is the same they both start and stop at the same time they're they the substance what they're made of is mental mental stuff they're both their substance is the same that's another one their uh aspect well i want to do aspect left oh gotcha uh then the other one is

[Speaker 2]
remember is that close to i don't remember anyway aspect is the fifth one

[Speaker 1]
which means the the general coloration of the mind the the image appearing in the mind is the same object is the same on the mind oh in this case the subject state of mind and oh and the object and we the famous example is the two vines in the vajrayogini sadhana right

[Speaker 2]
so since we translate yule and yulchen as subject and object or mitba as object and we're choosing a lot of words the same way do you have a suggestion of how to translate zinnam and zingnam well it's

[Speaker 1]
something like holder and held okay what's it in the vajrayogini sadhana grasping what grasps grasping what's grasping what it grasps oh that's grasping and what it grasps oh that's cool what that that's in a bad connotation yeah but this is not okay this is just hold holder and what is held holder and held subject holder and held that's all uh what is held is more clear uh holder and what is held by the mind in latin kepto septo what is held it's the same in latin to perceive hold grasp okay concept concept uh anyway um so there must be an a holder aspect because uh lo ke langne we have accepted a mind but he didn't say but or anything okay he just said once you accept mind having accepted mind yeah we are saying it is devoid uemba uh-huh and the famous example is when sappa who's a lama whose name came to be the guy who stayed out of the middle of nowhere so uemba normally means like bully or something it means out mistakes but as philosophy it means devoid of so it is the devoid of all held or object aspect okay so if you're saying that we're talking about mind then we're talking about something which is dhinnam and not sundam

[Speaker 2]
something that is a that is a holder and not what is held yeah

[Speaker 1]
the aspect is of being the subject and not of being the object for sure then we say no problem okay either it's us being sarcastic or it's him being dumb you know we have to sit on it for a while okay we didn't have to sit on it for a while there's no help you're not going to get help anywhere unless we proposed put all of gel sarjay's books in a folder and search him for this conversation and maybe have this conversation in a different place or or possibly looking at other commentaries of the 60 verses you can try but he's going off somewhere that i don't think anyone else is going off okay okay if you look at the outline yeah he's spending an inordinate amount of time on this subject yeah i'm not going to do it later this is his own i think it's his own diversion yeah so i as you're more likely to find it in his discussions of some other book okay he's got a bone to pick that's the only thing i can think of i you know i was so frustrated i went and outlined the whole text to someone help and i you know from that you detected that he's spending too much time here as we are he's not moving you know he's he's not hasn't mentioned the root text for a long time yeah well we're like a quarter of the way through and we're like on the third or sixth yeah so uh he's he's got an issue on his mind from some debate he had with some sakya two months ago and he's trying to insert it in here you know

[Speaker 2]
but this is common we're all tired of hearing people say you your mind

[Speaker 1]
disappears in the direct perception yeah yeah okay anyway it's cool uh so the last thing this person said whoever's talking is it may be now my idea is it may be that there's no there isn't any aspect or coloration of things depending on other things for example can you have a zinnam without a zinnam no well theoretically can you have a subject without an object no i mean no because the in a way the subject rests on the object yeah in the way that the coffee cup rests on the table yeah red and the and the perception of red you got to have a red if you're going to have a perception of red you must have a zinnam to have a zinnam and then i think we're being sarcastic and say okay so there's no there's no since you're one without the other whether you're saying you started out by saying there was no cup but there was a table now you're saying there's a table but no cup okay yeah okay so let's say that is uh let's say one of them is gone okay you decide which then let's say there's no need for uh the subject and the object to be related for example okay but what's why does that prevent someone from thinking anyone has a nature of its own right how does that help us to see emptiness we're we're i think we're talking and saying what's the point right you know if if the only thing happening in the dark perception of empty is that your mind is turned off or that there's no possible object how does that help you understand emptiness okay how is that the path of seeing yeah right and i take chinyi here to be a false true nature of things okay okay how does how does that prevent it it doesn't and then he goes to a later verse in nagarjuna's text and it's supposed to support his line of thinking okay so we you know if we can't understand his line of thinking maybe we can understand and then come back and and understand his line of thinking because according to him a later verse in the same text supports his thought okay so we have to really understand that later birth and and sometimes you just give up on the section you're in and you go to the next section and see if you can make sense of it and if you do you take that back to the section before and it helps you you know so so we're going to try to go to that verse later on in the text and see if it gives us any kind of help unfortunately it's equally difficult maybe it's more difficult yeah so we went and got nagarjuna's verse and then we went and got Gyaltsabje's commentary okay and he's not there yet and he won't be there for about a year but uh we're going to struggle with it okay now first step is to make sure you understand all the words in the verse even if you don't understand what they mean that's together yeah so here's nagarjuna the great elements which which we've established here later he only relates it to the four sometimes it's five sometimes it's six satchu menmu earth water fire wind wind okay which is kind of equal to gravitation electricity you know there are fundamental forces there are fundamental forces that's pretty cool they're not some kind of stupid people who think there's little pieces of dirt in every atom or something like that right it's more sophisticated than that it really is newtonian forces uh and they the people who understand abhidharma understand that okay so juhvache the great elements mahabhuta etc shepa spoken explained namah shepa namah shesu as being consciousness or into consciousness yandadu that's the du we had a discussion all this morning for like 10 minutes okay which means combined give me the full form

[Speaker 2]
uh oh do the condition convening of causes all right i'll kiss you

[Speaker 1]
a thing which was created by the convening of its causes and conditions okay so here's convening okay it is or it is included into consciousness it is subsumed by consciousness okay uh maybe it's the great elements that were explained etc that were spoken about the great elements etc that were spoken about it possibly says are included perfectly into consciousness okay uh if you understand okay by understanding that you lose them you are separated you lose them or they are lost okay if you understand that they are lost

[Speaker 2]
understand that they are lost no not that they are lost

[Speaker 1]
If you understand, then they are lost. What it is we don't know yet? We don't know yet.

We're not sure yet. Now, my yin-nam is a rhetorical question, sarcastic question. Isn't that the case?

Isn't it the case that you are looking at things in the wrong way? BRT, meaning examining or analyzing things in the wrong way. Absolutely no sense.

Now, here's the commentary, and I've underlined the root text. This is clear, the first part, the first line. The great elements and the et cetera are clear.

That's the only part that's clear. Great elements, which means gyuri suk. You can say underlying matter, underlying physical form.

According to Buddhism, there's two layers of physicality. One is underlying everything, Newtonian forces. And then when they interact, they create...

Matter and energy. Tangibles, tastes, smells. So, this is okay.

Four underlying physical forces, the great elements. And there are supposed to be 11 resulting products of those forces, which are physical, like hardness, coldness. Hunger is one of them.

Don't go there. So, la sopa, so the et cetera in the root text... Covers those.

The great elements, et cetera. He only mentioned the underlying forces, and the et cetera is the products of the underlying forces. He says, Gyaltsabje says it's the 11.

I went and got the 11 for you. It's not the 11 types of tangibles.

[Speaker 2]
Don't confuse it.

[Speaker 1]
Because I had a feeling, isn't that Adam's 11 types of tangibles? So, I went and got you the 11. They are simple.

They are not a big deal. They are here. And this author, which is Geshe Thottam Rinpoche's teacher, Kachinsubpa, who has already passed away, he quotes the Abhidharmakosha, the kosha, the kosha.

And he says, it's the five outer objects of the senses, sukta, ti, ro, rek, ja. Sukta, ti, ro, rek, ja. And it's the five sense organs, eye, ear, nose, tongue and body, skin.

And, nambharic chenmayi visnu. Non-communicating karma. Non-communicating form.

Physicality, which does not communicate, at that moment, the intention of the person who has it. So, this is an Abhidharma idea, right? Give me an example of nambharic chenmayi visnu, which does communicate the intention.

Yeah, when you're down, genuflecting, and your hands are in vowel form, it indicates that you have some kind of virtuous state of mind. It's an outward indication of an inward state of mind. It communicates to the observer something about the person.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Now there's an assumption, right? That you're not thinking about lunch. Or you're not angry at somebody, and you're like...

I mean, there's an assumption that you are... There's a mean way to offer the mandala. That there's some kind of...

do you good long, or they do good long, which is virtuous. But it's possible to do a whole mandala offering without thinking about it once, right?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, be a part of mandala.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, so why... I mean, it would be an interesting question of why he chose the form that doesn't communicate your intention, and left out the form that does communicate your intention, unless that's considered one of the five. But which of the five?

I guess it'd be an object of the sense consciousness, visible. Well, it could be when you hear them chanting, you assume they have a virtuous state of mind. They're chanting the Heart Sutra, they must be thinking about emptiness.

That would be one of the... So maybe it's the case that the number of cepe stuka has already been mentioned in the five.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Maybe. Anyway, now you have the 11, and that's the last time we're going to understand anything. Okay.

So here we go. So those four, and those 11. Now the cepe is clear because before it he says doleho, which were mentioned in sutra by Lord Buddha.

So the first line, we nailed it. The great elements, etc., meaning their products, which were taught by Lord Buddha in the sutras, according to Gyaltsabje. Here's how I take it, okay?

And I take it, tepa. Tepa means, when you direct... Tepa means...

I saw this science fiction movie yesterday. You know, there was these robots with one eye here. And it was like...

You know, and they would... Tepa, they had machine sounds going... So tepa means to direct your...

Attention. Your attention at something. Okay?

So, when you direct your awareness at something, but he modifies the awareness. He says, messed up. Messed up state of awareness.

Okay. Okay? Which is basically misunderstanding things.

Meritirungshin. Okay. So assumed that we're talking about a state of mind which is messed up in some way, which is mistaken in some way.

[Speaker 2]
Is this natural ignorance or ignorance...

[Speaker 1]
No, it just means its nature is to be... is to misunderstand.

[Speaker 2]
Alright.

[Speaker 1]
So a consciousness, an awareness, whose nature is to misunderstand things.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. When it focuses on something.

[Speaker 1]
When it looks at... I take it to be these...

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
15 products. Products or causes. Okay.

Physicality things. Physical things. 16 or 15.

[Speaker 2]
15.

[Speaker 1]
When it looks at them, when you direct the mind at them and the mind's messed up. Right. Okay?

They appear to the mind. Namah shan means they appear. They make their appearance to the mind.

Sanmato means nothing more than none. That's all that there is. Mato means except for that.

Right. Except for just that. You cannot...

Establish the existence. Establish that they exist. What?

Those 15 things.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Forms. Outer forms. The colors and shapes of things.

You cannot establish. They are just figments of the imagination of a messed up mind. Okay?

This is kind of a mind-only idea. You know? You are actually watching seeds open in your mind and you're not even aware that there are seeds.

Okay? Therefore, we could include all of these 15 into consciousness itself. There are nothing more than figments of the consciousness.

So, you could just say they're all consciousness. And this might be the mind-only school. Then how does this relate to subject and object state of mind?

That's what I'm... Working on it. We're just not there yet.

I believe... Which we didn't get to yet. Sooner or later, he's going to say...

Well, already what we have is asumna.

[Speaker 2]
Asumna. Or adhinna, right? He's saying they're all consciousness.

[Speaker 1]
No, but those... He's kind of saying all the colors and shapes you ever see are just asumna. They're just an aspect of your own mind.

[Speaker 2]
Wouldn't... Okay. They're an object aspect.

[Speaker 1]
He was saying, okay, if you're not going to let me say there's no subject aspect, then I say there's no object aspect during the direct perception.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
And we're saying, come on, he has a whole verse about object aspects.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Later on. He cannot believe that there's no subject aspect because all the physical things you ever experience are nothing but object aspects.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
But I think he's going there. Yeah, it makes sense. Okay.

Well, it makes sense, but... Okay. Now...

Now, if that... Here's how I take it. And I might change the English here.

nama shepa de nang shing gi kyur If that state of consciousness, which is by nature misunderstanding, if suddenly it figured out, okay, shepa, that that, I take it to be those... The elements.

[Speaker 2]
The elements.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Although I didn't say it that way here, so don't pay much attention to it.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
If it were to understand that those didn't start... From any nature of their own. On their own, didn't start on their own, those appearances of objects, if it ever figured it out, then it would lose del.

Connection. The shimba. Crest.

The attachment to that, to them existing really. Okay? To those elements, etc.

existing really.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
If the mind ever cleaned up shepa, then it would lose its belief. Shimba? Belief.

Irrational belief.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
That the elements are real.

[Speaker 2]
So it sounds like...

[Speaker 1]
Wait, wait, wait. We got two lines now. We're really wailing.

Oh, three lines. Three lines. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Elements that were explained in the sutra actually are part of the mind. If you understand that, then you're freed from... Your stupid views.

Yeah. So he's making a case for why it's actually useful to have a subject, to posit a subject and object state of mind in the direct perception of emptiness.

[Speaker 2]
Or why that would be... Why you say that you would need those two things.

[Speaker 1]
That's the true nature of objects. Aspects. Uh-huh.

Yeah. They exist in your mind. I think it sounds a lot like a mind-only school.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Which we're going to get to in one step. But isn't the reason he's saying if you were to be able to stop the way that you're... If you could stop misunderstanding...

Stop the way that that mind is... If you stop thinking they're outer things...

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
And understand they are just... Appearance of the mind. You could say luminous images coming out of your seeds.

Uh-huh. Okay. Then?

Then you would lose this wrong belief. Shambha. You would stop thinking of them as real.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
In the sense of existing out there.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
If your mind ever got more pure, you would see that these are just images coming out of your seeds. And you would stop shambha. You would stop this strong belief that they exist out there.

Okay. So far we're okay, right? Yeah, we've got to stop in five minutes for our picture.

And then... We're almost got to where we were last time.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, but we're closer to understanding?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, way closer.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, yeah, yeah. This is great.

[Speaker 1]
We are caught up.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
So, in that case, wouldn't you have understood that they were wrong? Uh-huh. Okay.

Meaning, this is just in the positive. Yandapa mayimba.

[Speaker 2]
Yandapa mayimba.

[Speaker 1]
Pay attention to the underline.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
You see? In that case, wouldn't you have grasped, wouldn't you have decided that they are wrong?

[Speaker 2]
Uh-huh.

[Speaker 1]
That they are wrong. Yeah, those shambhas.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Or those beliefs about form.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
And then he explains the sarcasm. Of course you would have.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
So, see, mayin nam means yin bar tao. You must have by then. You would have by then.

Then this house, because he says, to summarize the point of this verse, the great elements, and their products, have no nature, because they start through dependence. Right. On seeds.

Okay. They start through dependence. Chepo means, that's what this verse is saying.

That's a quotation mark. So he says, I'll summarize it for you. Here's what it's saying.

Chepo means, here's what it's saying. Here's what it's saying. Now, I would like to go to the next line and stop there.

And then there's more here that might be relevant. But this part is really relevant. Nambar sharva matto, but for their appearance in the mind, chiden yupar shak minne.

You could never posit that outer objects exist. So that's more clear now. There is a sumnam.

There is an object aspect appearing to the mind. But other than that, they don't exist. So it's getting more and more mind-only.

Sounds like he's talking, describing the mind only. And in that case, coffee cups, which exist outside of you, have the existential validity of motion people.

[Speaker 2]
Right. That's what he says, of a woman, of the baby of a barren woman.

[Speaker 1]
Just some kind of impossibility. Right. There are many impossibilities.

You can say, a sky flower, a rabbit's antlers. It's just one of those synonyms for something that never did exist, never could exist. Okay?

So apparently, what he's saying is there's a synonym that there's no outer object, chiden. But that appearance of it to the mind, you know, nambar sharva matto, nobody said that didn't exist. Okay?

So, don't accuse Nagarjuna of saying there's no synonym. There's no object. There's no object factor.

I already proved to you you've got to have a dhinnam.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
You know, during the direct perception of emptiness, you've got to have some state of mind, some perceptual state of mind.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Then he, we kind of got through that, and then he says, well, then there's no synonym. Then there's no object aspect. And then we just disproved that.

Oh.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. And not only that, but he also said that by seeing that, by seeing the object aspect, you would free yourself.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's true. Which is really key. If you say there's no object aspect, then how is it that by understanding it, you could free yourself?

[Speaker 2]
And how would just stopping the appearance of objects help you when what's going to help you is seeing that those appearances are merely appearances? Something like that. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, don't tell me and the guy we don't need him, because they are why you get free. Right. That's what I was trying to say before.

He's kind of trying to make that case.

[Speaker 2]
Anyway. We should go down for the picture, so that everybody's happy.

[Speaker 1]
Hang on.

[Speaker 2]
I just want to... Good idea to drink a coffee in between those two sessions, that's why.

[Speaker 1]
Well, look. I want to just draw your attention.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
We didn't finish the sentence in which he referred to the later verse. Wow. Okay.

In that verse, which comes later, at that point in our text, the possession of an aspect relating to the object is kelan. Accepted. Is accepted.

And so what I want you to think about, sarcasm.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Is that... When an object enters the mind, you know, is there any... Does the mind change in any way?

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
And is there anything that causes it to change in any way? Right. And is there any kind of aspect of having changed in any way?

Is there something changed? Is there something changing it? And is there a change when an object passes through the mind?

Does the mind change?

[Speaker 2]
I understand.

[Speaker 1]
When the object aspect moves through the mind and is constantly... What do you call it?

[Speaker 2]
Transmitting?

[Speaker 1]
Moving? Passing through?

[Speaker 2]
Fluctuating?

[Speaker 1]
Fluctuating. Then doesn't the mind also fluctuate? Isn't the holder, the holding, and the held...

Doesn't fluctuations in one create a fluctuation in the other? Think about it. Why are we asking that?

[Speaker 2]
Because he wants the guy to...

[Speaker 1]
In the direct perception of emptiness, something has to be going on.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. And he wants the guy to accept that there is both. There are, in fact, both subjects and objects.

[Speaker 1]
He's talking about the three spheres.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
How can you have three spheres if there's no object, or there's no subject, or there's no interaction?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. And he's getting to talking about a tsunami of emptiness, right?

[Speaker 1]
Well, yeah. I think so. So anyway, what he's saying is now he's talking about gyura, meaning fluctuation.

Okay. How can there be these three spheres without a subject, an object, and an interaction?

[Speaker 2]
Interaction. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Then that's how he interprets that verse coming later. I see.

It's cool. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Wow, dude. Thanks. Your book's hard.

[Speaker 1]
It is. The comfort is that nobody else could ever figure it out.

[Speaker 2]
To tell us we're wrong. Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you.