Классика Алмазного огранщика: Верхний Срединный путь — Великие книги мудрости, занятие 15

[Speaker 1]
So, just to recap, we are in a section where somebody was trying to say that during the direct perception emptiness you wouldn't have any state of mind. And then it got a little messy and they said, well, maybe you don't have any object. So then we went to a later part of Nagarjuna's own text to where they discussed object aspects of the mind, that the mind would include some kind of object.

There would be some kind of object involved in the perception of emptiness also. And then they were describing an object aspect consisting of the four elements and eleven products of those four elements which are still physical. And then we said table by extension.

So the mind can, since Nagarjuna himself in the same text always discussed these object aspects because apparently the point of discussing them later is that you understand that they're coming from you. So that was the point of discussing them later, that at some point you would say, aha, these are coming from my seeds or something like that. And in essence these are part of my mind and in essence they are not outer objects as I thought they were.

And then it gets a little mind-only-ish. Now, you have two options today. In his discussion later of these sunyams, object aspects, he gets into the presence of subject aspects also in the same breath.

So you can either cover that now if you wish or we could go back to where you are in your text and we're going to be discussing a few more proofs for why you do have a mind going on during the direct perception of emptiness. So, up to you. I mean, we'll get to the other part later anyway.

Didn't we already, I'm sorry, maybe I'm confused, but I thought we already cut that part out and translated it to the part where he discusses the nuns. I don't think so. No, we didn't.

We definitely didn't. Because this gets into wrong apperception, which we didn't talk about. Oh, yeah, we didn't talk about.

This gets into apperception. But we did translate that one section. We went through the sunyam section.

We talked about sunyams. Oh, right, right. So it's up to you.

We can go to a discussion of zenyams. Almost as, we won't grasp it fully, but it might prepare you for later. When you hit this section later, verse 35.

Or we can just give up and go back to our text, where we are. It's not a heap of stuff. It's not long.

You want to do it, you know, to a glass darkly. Whatever you think gets on the table. Is it pasted in here already?

It is. It's here. It's after the 11.

No, it's not. It's before the 11. So we did start.

We did it before this. Yeah, we started it. Oh, no, sorry, I started it on my own.

I tried and then gave up after like five words. Good. Let's go there.

Let's be brave, okay? And I don't know if I can resolve it totally. But it will prepare us for later.

[Speaker 2]
Vishal, in another text, there was like ten aspects of the mind that are always present.

[Speaker 1]
That's Abhidharma. Don't follow it.

[Speaker 2]
He's higher middle way.

[Speaker 1]
He's higher middle way. Don't go there. You'll get a headache.

No, no, no, no. Sorry, sorry. Okay, that's like mixing Mexicans and Ukrainians.

That shit will be coming really. Keep going. Read, read, read.

Be more obvious. It's not a Z. It's a low tone S.

Low tone S, okay? I don't know. Okay, just to help you, I put this note in.

This is a kaji. And it ends here. It's kind of long.

So somebody comes and says, but he doesn't tell you that, but I figured it out. Somebody says... Okay.

Do you have a subject aspect or not? Is there a subject aspect or not to the mind? Okay.

Is there or isn't there a subject aspect to mind itself? Now, here a subject aspect is going to get a little nasty, okay? But you'll see why.

It's like the first. If it's like the first. Which is yun or me?

Which is if there is. Yeah, good. If the normal state of mind has a part of it which is subject aware.

You all right with that? Normal state of mind. You got a problem with that?

Well, in the state...

[Speaker 2]
We're already on Theravada.

[Speaker 1]
Just by saying subject aware? No, not necessarily.

[Speaker 2]
What's a subject aware that's not Theravada?

[Speaker 1]
I don't know. Aware of myself, me. I don't know.

Maybe it's just the awareness itself. Okay. What's Theravada?

We're getting there.

[Speaker 2]
It's premature.

[Speaker 1]
Sunam yang ke lam me. So, if you accept that there's a dzinnam, a subject aspect to the mind, then you would also have to accept... This is the past tense optative.

You would have accepted. You would also have to accept. You would have accepted that there was a sunam, an object aspect, okay?

Because you can't have one without the other. Okay. And therefore, the mind in essence would be split into two parts.

Chen ni. There'd have to be two parts to the mind. What does manta chok mean?

I'm getting there. Oh, sorry. There'd have to be two parts to the mind.

One which was... Aware of itself. Aimed inward.

Aimed inward, yeah. So, chok is a verb here. Aimed inwardly.

Directed. You can say directed. The mind would have to have simultaneously two aspects.

One that was inwardly directed.

[Speaker 2]
Wait a minute.

[Speaker 1]
Manta chok and chiri chok. He's referring to the subject, the sunam, that is focused inward? Yeah.

No, the dzinnam. Okay. You'd have to be aware of itself perceiving.

Oh, you'd have to accept the sunam and you'd have to accept that it's focused inward. No. But if you say the mind does have a subject aspect, then that implies that the mind has an object aspect.

Then that implies that there would have to be an inwardly directed part of the mind and an outwardly directed part of the mind. And chi. Okay, chiri chok.

This is chi la chok. Here it was nang du. And this is chi la.

So, unfortunately, when you jam it together, it could be two other words. Okay, because or outside. Sorry, which?

Chir. This chir is not yinpe chir or anything like that.

[Speaker 2]
It's chi la. It's chi la.

[Speaker 1]
Directed towards the outside. Focused towards the outside. So, in that sense, you would have had to accept that there would be two parts to the mind.

That the mind is always schizophrenic. This is all kacik. Yeah.

We're still in the middle of a kacik. Do you accept that there's a subject state of mind? Yeah.

Aspect to the mind.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yes. Well, then you must accept that there's an object aspect to the mind.

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Well, then you'd have to accept that there's an inwardly directed half of the mind. Yes. Then you'd have to accept that there's an outwardly directed state, part of the mind.

Yes. Then you'd have to end up wrong. Wrong rig.

Okay. Wrong rig. So, technically, in psychology, wrong rig is apperception.

A-P-P-E-R. Okay. Technically, it's called apperception.

And it means the ability of the mind to be aware of the mind in the same instant. You have to say, in the same instant. Not the next instant.

Even Abhidharma says, I'm aware of my mind in the next instant. And her text is built on that. You know, that I'm watching myself.

Okay. So, that's not a big deal. If it's one after the other, you know, it's not a big deal.

But some schools of Buddhism say it's happening in the same moment. You're aware of... I'm aware of jigme and I'm aware of myself at the same moment.

[Speaker 2]
That's a mind only.

[Speaker 1]
I think it's a mind only. Mind only. Yeah.

Okay. And it's a big point of contention. There's probably some lower middle way guys who also accept it.

But this is all talking about in the direct perception of emptiness, right? He's not just talking about... Well, everything up until this point hasn't been about that.

[Speaker 2]
This is cut out of some people's... Oh, that's right. That's right.

That's right.

[Speaker 1]
So, rang re ke lang pa la. By the way, this is still Gautamji's commentary just later. Right.

I know. Chi ma tar na, ke lang pa, rang re ke lang la. Chi ma tar na goes back to here, to this me.

Oh, the second one. If it's the latter. Okay, so don't get confused.

This chi ma, if it's the latter, then you've got to go all the way back to this me. If it's the case that there is no subject aspect. Soft disjunctive here.

Whereas, if it's the latter, which means there is no subject aspect to the mind, then you can't say there's an object aspect. Right. Then you can't say...

Sunamite. Sunamite. That would be incorrect.

Then it's mate. It's other half. Could also not exist.

Must also not exist. So, he's saying there's problems either way. If you say there's a subject aspect to the mind, then you've got to be accepting apperception, which we don't.

And if you say there's no subject aspect to the mind, then there can't be an object aspect to the mind. Right. Okay?

Right. And probably in this next part, he's quoting the root text somehow, and I didn't go get it for you. I didn't underline it for you.

Might be the next verse. It's definitely... It'd be 36.

Actually, I have it up for you. I'm not lazy. No, it's not there.

It doesn't come in the root text. Okay? It's a separate argument.

Okay. But I wonder... Yeah.

Yeah, okay. SHES PA'I YUL RIG PA'I THUB PA RIG PA'I TZAM THUB ZIN PA'I SHES PA'I YUL... SHES PA'I YUL RIG PA'I THUB PA RIG PA'I TZAM THUB ZIN PA'I RIG PA'I THUB PA CHAR BA'I PHYIR DU RANG RGYAS PAS GANG GZHAN GYIS PHYIR PA MYUR Okay, this is where I get a little lost, okay?

So, let's try. SHES PA'I YUL RIG PA'I THUB PA If there's a concept... If you establish...

Okay? If you assume... Okay?

Assuming that there is an understanding of the object by the mind. Assuming that there is an awareness of the object by the mind. Once you say there's a perception of an object by the mind, then by definition, you have already accepted...

DRUG ZIN Uh-huh. Okay? You have already accepted perception in itself.

[Speaker 2]
Right. Awareness.

[Speaker 1]
Right, right, right. Forget my notes here. They're going to confuse you.

But the... SHES PA'I YUL is by accepting the object of perception. When you accept that the mind has perceived an object, then you are accepting...

You have already accepted the idea of perception.

[Speaker 2]
Right, right, right, right. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Uh... So I'm going to just...

[Speaker 2]
If you accept YUL RIG PA'I, then you accept YUL RIG PA'I.

[Speaker 1]
I'm going to change the page here, because I just decided not to use my own footnote. It's a very small page.

[Speaker 2]
Uh-huh. They say that they cannot hear you completely. All of a sudden, the voice becomes very small.

[Speaker 1]
Maybe the battery's dying or something. It's not that one. No, it's not dying.

[Speaker 2]
Maybe it's the battery on the other one.

[Speaker 1]
They can hear clearly. Oh, look, it's not... That'll do it.

[Speaker 2]
Oh.

[Speaker 1]
It chopped. It disconnected itself somehow.

[Speaker 2]
Oh dear. Uh-oh.

[Speaker 1]
I hear what you're doing.

[Speaker 2]
It's working. But it's disconnected itself.

[Speaker 1]
Uh-oh. That sounded right.

[Speaker 2]
Don't break it.

[Speaker 1]
Well, it's already broken. I'm just trying to unbreak it.

[Speaker 2]
He's trying to manipulate it. I mean, it's going to fall apart again.

[Speaker 1]
You have to watch it. You have to glue it. You have to get a new one, I guess.

Maybe I can just hold it. Something's wrong.

[Speaker 2]
It's disconnected. Oh, they said they cannot hear anything now.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Why don't I turn this off for a second?

[Speaker 1]
It's not... Well, I just jammed it back together somehow. That's not good enough.

Can anybody hear if he's... Hello, boo-boo? Bee-bee-boo-boo?

Yeah. Bop-bop. Beep-beep.

Doop-doop.

[Speaker 2]
He said that now they can only hear the noise. Yeah, yeah. They cannot hear your voice.

Are you talking?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, he's talking at him.

[Speaker 2]
It's just not working. You need to get a one-two check.

[Speaker 1]
Hello, check one-two. Boo-boo-boo. Hello, hello.

How are you? It is falling apart. It is totally disconnected.

Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
I think it's gone. Oh, man. Oh, that's a bummer.

Do you have another backup? No, this is my personal one. Oh, I see.

[Speaker 1]
Maybe Scott has one downstairs. Maybe, but they're in class right now. Hello, boo-boo.

I would go ask Scott, what's this called? It's a lavalier, Mike. Does he have another lavalier?

[Speaker 2]
But they're in class right now.

[Speaker 1]
It's okay. They might be in meditation. We have an emergency.

Have a coffee, drink a beer. Ha-ha-ha.

[Speaker 2]
It's a little early. Do you have one? No money?

I don't have one.

[Speaker 1]
We don't have one.

[Speaker 2]
Only your personal? This is Jigme.

[Speaker 1]
That's what we've always used. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
But what's the reason why? Because we didn't have one. We just never bought one.

[Speaker 1]
They're expensive.

[Speaker 2]
They're very expensive. $600. Holy moly.

$600? Yeah, I looked it up recently.

[Speaker 1]
Get a warranty on those things?

[Speaker 2]
Huh? Get a warranty on that kind of thing?

[Speaker 1]
I have a...

[Speaker 2]
We've had this thing for years.

[Speaker 1]
Well, it's time for a new one, apparently. I probably broke it. Can I see it for you?

I'm sorry. Sure, sure, sure. I mean, I just...

Check, check. Nope, that doesn't do it either. That's...

[Speaker 2]
What's weird about it is that it... This doesn't have any...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. And this. This tax cam does a pretty good job.

Well, I'll give $599.

[Speaker 2]
The problem is... Done.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, the problem is tomorrow's Sunday. So, I don't know that we... Can you order it right now?

[Speaker 2]
I'm on... Yeah, I'm looking at it. Is there anybody in Sedona who would sell it?

[Speaker 1]
Is there anybody in Sedona who would sell it?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
I don't think in Sedona.

[Speaker 2]
How about Sosta?

[Speaker 1]
Best Buy? Maybe Best Buy, but this is a... This is a pretty specific brand.

Yeah. I doubt even Sennheiser would... I think this is the one.

It's Drone It from Amazon. Yeah, that's probably our best bet.

[Speaker 2]
We can get it by Monday from Amazon. Why don't you just order one now?

[Speaker 1]
Because even if you get another one between now and then, I think you should have two of them. I'm not even sure if that's right.

[Speaker 2]
What's... Is there a model number on there? Because there's a lot of different models.

[Speaker 1]
This is the Sennheiser EW100G3.

[Speaker 2]
This is the... There's a 112G3. What's that, Upala?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, yeah, let's order that one.

[Speaker 2]
This one seemed to work.

[Speaker 1]
It's probably worth $20,000. Yeah, right. I'll try that.

But I'll bet you...

[Speaker 2]
This is not $600.

[Speaker 1]
It is. This part is not. Just this part is $600.

You can order the replacement microphone. That's not going to be $600. That's a great idea.

But I would buy another one anyway.

[Speaker 2]
Get two replacement microphones. No. Get a whole one.

[Speaker 1]
And a replacement microphone. And somebody can call this one.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, okay.

[Speaker 1]
Somebody can call Flagstaff.

[Speaker 2]
The mic only is $150.

[Speaker 1]
A lapel mic. A Sennheiser lapel mic.

[Speaker 2]
No, just this part. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
But Jimmy, buy a whole backup one.

[Speaker 2]
Well, I can buy a backup one and that part.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. That's what I want to do. And I'll pay for it.

[Speaker 2]
I'll pay for it. Okay, so that's going to be $750.

[Speaker 1]
That's okay. Just do it.

[Speaker 2]
There is a fax.

[Speaker 1]
Now the question is should we send someone to Flagstaff?

[Speaker 2]
Say what?

[Speaker 1]
Someone has to call the Best Buy in Flagstaff and ask if they have it. It looks like Adam is volunteering. I don't think you have to do it right now, but maybe during the next break.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, so if I get it from Amazon, it's $779. Okay, okay. It's okay.

You want me to go ahead?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, okay.

[Speaker 2]
And he sold something?

[Speaker 1]
Yes.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. So then we'll have...

[Speaker 1]
Huh? No, just... Let's talk about the money later.

Let's just do it. We don't have a backup. We should have a backup.

We'll have two backups. We'll get the money. It doesn't hurt.

Go pay. I think the SCIM can buy one. I mean, it makes sense, right?

[Speaker 2]
It just buys a ton of equipment. And what? Every time you say, and, I have more room.

Is it overnight?

[Speaker 1]
Ask these guys. I have no idea. I just talk.

That's my job. Okay, let's go. This is a tough test.

We've got to keep going. Can you hear me now? Can you hear me now?

[Speaker 2]
Okay, let's go. Now, this is cool.

[Speaker 1]
Once the mind has perceived an object, okay, then perception has already been established. Once the mind has perceived an object, perception has already been established by the awareness of the object. Okay?

Yeah. So... Cool.

It's unnecessary to examine, okay? It's unnecessary to examine whether or not the mind knows itself or someone else knows it. Okay?

It's unnecessary. And this is a famous... It's the bite of the mouse on the bear.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
Okay.

[Speaker 2]
This is a famous...

[Speaker 1]
argument against the perception of the mind by itself. You know, if you can remember the pizzas that you ate at the pizza party a couple of days ago, you must have had a mind. We don't need more proof than that.

Okay? You must have had a mind at the time. That's all.

And the famous example in Shantideva is that a bear goes to sleep over the winter, okay? And while they're asleep, a mouse eats a little piece of their skin or something. Then when they wake up in the spring, they see a wound here, and they say, I must have had a mouse.

There must have been a mouse. It means if there's evidence of the mind having been there, there must have been a mind there. If you can remember a pizza, you must have remembered.

And we had this recently in her text, if you want to tell me why. We had a mamikvita. We discussed a mamikvita, a proof of something not being there.

And it was the recollection of a... It was the recollection of a preta in the mind of a person who's not sure about pretas. Oh, yeah.

All right. But that was a long time ago. Okay.

Okay. So just the fact that the mind has perceived something, the fact that you... Essentially, the fact that you remember something proves that there must have been an act of perception.

So it's not necessary to sit there and try to examine, chod, whether the mind is established by itself or by something else, meaning of the next moment, the mind of the next moment. It's unnecessary exercise to go into it because if you're aware of an object, you must have had a mind. So there's no necessity, there's no point, mirek, it would be improper to examine, chodpa, whether the mind was perceived by itself or by some other entity, okay, in order to establish the existence of mind.

Rukpa, rukpa druppa jaya ca. Just saying it's not necessary, right? Well, mirek means it would be wrong.

It would be a stupid thing. To try to prove whether you had a mind at the pizza party if you can remember the taste of the pizza. It'd be a stupid exercise to try to discuss whether your mind saw itself or whether the mind in the next instance saw the mind because the perception has been confirmed by the memory of the pizza.

Okay, got it? Now he says something kind of controversial. If it were necessary to talk about apperception or not, if it were necessary to talk about whether or not the mind was perceiving itself when it saw the pizza.

Okay, all right? If it were necessary to go into that, to prove the mind, then I say mind would be physical. If it were necessary to...

because then it would... No, wait, here's his punchline. Sorry, Geshe-la, is this the daytime now?

Daytime means if it were necessary to do that exercise to establish the existence of mind during the pizza party. Pizza was like that. Okay.

Then I say awareness would have to be a physical matter. What's the connection? We say...

and this is a famous argument in the apperception arguments which are immense. Because in this case, awareness would be a matter of outer, outside illumination in the way that a candlelight illuminates a coffee cup. Okay?

So then there would have to be another entity outside of the mind that was lighting it up so you could see it. Right. There'd have to be something external to the mind illuminating it to our perceptions.

Okay? So then it would become physical. It'd all become a physical thing.

[Speaker 2]
So this says it would be like light illuminating a coffee cup?

[Speaker 1]
This says bumpa. Yeah. Which I may or may not translate as coffee cup.

By a butter lamb. Yeah. A water pitcher would have to be illuminated.

Yeah, yeah. Okay, the mind would have to be illuminated by an outside entity in the same way that water pitchers have to be illuminated by candles. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Okay? Yeah. And that's a famous argument.

That's a famous... For a wrong rate. And this is this idea.

In my Sanskrit class, my teacher who knew nothing about Buddhism, he was a Vedic scholar, and he said the word loka world is interesting because it's related to the word lucent. Illuminate. Meaning lux in Latin.

And he said, without knowing any Buddhism, he said in ancient India the idea was the world was lighted by the mind. Illuminated by the mind. The mind was the illuminating force.

And it lit up the world. You see, the world's out there and you can't see it till the mind lights it up. So that's kind of related.

Okay. Okay, that was the painful part. We got through it.

All right. And actually, I just figured it out, so I didn't feel so bad about it. But as of an hour ago, I hadn't figured it out.

Now, he's going to go into... Gyatso Je is going to go into problems raised by the possibility of there being no mind during the direct perception of emptiness. Okay?

So he's going to... He's kind of done with that section in which he pulled out a later part of the same text to debate a guy who said, well, now I say there's no object aspect. Because we already argued against the subject aspect.

That there was no subject aspect. We argued against that. And probably this discussion of object aspects' purpose has been to prove that there's a subject aspect.

And we're done with that. Now we're just going back to some general stupid things that would be true if he was correct.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
And it's kind of easier, so it's, you know... And then we're going to go into a super sexy part about can you prove something with mistaken perception?

[Speaker 2]
Cool. Wow.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, which is what happens when Geshe-la explains the pen to you.

[Speaker 2]
Right, right, right. But that's cool. That's pretty awesome.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Because we started touching on that already. Yeah, we touched on it. Okay, so here's a pretty easy one.

Moreover. Shenyang. Shenyang.

You want to read? Shenyang. Landen-de-jay-su-zhak-shing.

[Speaker 2]
No Z.

[Speaker 1]
No Z. Just a low-tone S. Of course.

Shak-ching. Day-tsen-shir. Pak-lam-yen-la-gye-shak-pay-tsir-dang.

De-dak-la-jay-tob-ki-kya-pa-gang-zu-yang-ma. Sung-shing-nyam-shak-lam-min-par-yang-ma-sung-so. Okay, good.

Shenyang. These are a pile of ridiculous consequences. Shenyang.

Yeah. Landen-de-jay-su-zhak. And here's the spelling of de-jay that I was disturbed about with Adam.

Because du-ma-che didn't have an S in his text. De-jay. Everybody agrees de-jay should have an S.

So give me the full form of de-jay. I hope by now somebody can do it. Che-pa-che-pa.

No. Oh, oh, oh, oh.

[Speaker 2]
It's condensed.

[Speaker 1]
It's hiding.

[Speaker 2]
Gyu-dang-ken. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Gyu-dang-ken, du-ne-che-pa-che. Du-ne-che-pa-che. Gyu-dang-ken, du-ne-che-pa-che.

I'll say it a hundred more times and you'll forget it. Gyu-dang-ken, du-ne-che-pa-che. Okay.

So, landen is established as being a de-jay. Okay, the truth of the path is established as being a... Is that true?

No. Oh. No.

Don't forget that in the Four Arya Truths, truth is not a Sautrantikish...

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Right. Statement that the sky is blue.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
It's the actual thing. Right. The truth of suffering is a mosquito biting you.

It's not the fact that a mosquito bites you.

[Speaker 2]
You see what I mean?

[Speaker 1]
Okay. So, normally truth means a fact, but in Buddhism, in the study of the Four Truths, it is not. It refers to the actual experience.

Right. Okay. So, in that case, landen is de-jay.

Don't forget lan-den-ba. Sorry, lan-nam-to-den-che. Okay.

The definition of a path is a realization. Right, right, right, right. In Buddhism, a path is not a method or a way.

It's an understanding. Right. So, it's a de-jay.

Yes, so it must be.

[Speaker 2]
Because it's shaped.

[Speaker 1]
Everybody agrees that landen is a de-jay. De-jay or de-jay?

[Speaker 2]
De-jay, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
De-jay. Because it's mental. Yeah.

Now, if you say that during the... Are you saying that during the direct perception of emptiness, we're not on tong-lam? Right.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
And the guy says, why do you talk like that? Why do you say during the direct perception, deep direct perception of emptiness is not tong-lam? Right.

And we say, because lam and... Because lam is aware. Sorry, khen-pa.

Lam and khen-pa are synonyms. Understanding is path. Okay.

Everybody agrees that lam is a de-jay. Okay. And everybody agrees that lam is a khen-pa.

Yeah. It's a knowledge. So, you know, is it a produced thing?

Yes. Can you say that it disappears during tong-lam? I mean, if you're just saying bullshit.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. All right. Now, also if someone says, can you give me an example of lam then?

Can you give me an example of a thing which is real and is the path? We say, yeah, I can give you a senshi. Okay.

As a senshi of lam then, we can take the tong-lam again. Take the eight parts of the Arya Path. Oh, this is like one of the first times I've seen this mentioned in Mahayana Buddhism.

Now, let's go... The Eightfold Path. The Eightfold Path.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Many of which are...

[Speaker 1]
20 years we've never studied.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
It came up once in Lam Rim. Geshe-la stood in Lam Rim.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
At the Mesa Unity. The wind was blowing. It was a cool autumn day.

We were all thinking about lam. Okay. I would go do this.

Okay. I'm being lazy, but I'll trust this guy on this. Who is it?

Okay. This is Sikh. Okay.

This is cheap, fast, easy way when you're in class. Here's the eight components of the Arya Path. Oh.

Can you send me that note? Well, now it's in the document. Dated today.

Okay. So, you want today's version. Yeah.

Now, give me some of these. Yandape Tawa. Correct view.

Yeah. A correct view. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Correct understanding. Yandape Tawa.

[Speaker 1]
Right understanding, as they say.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Right speech. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Talking. Talking correctly. Yandape Lekhe Tawa means...

Right action. Right view. Action.

Yeah. Yandape Tawa. Right me...

Right livelihood. Yeah. Right livelihood.

Yandape Tawa. Correct effort. And they all have their own meaning, and I don't remember.

Right memory or right recollection. Right recollection. Right meditation.

Okay. Got it? Now, is Tonglam Arya Path?

Yes, absolutely. Yes. Does the Arya Path have eight parts?

Sure, yes. Well... Are like six of them...

Wait, this is confusing then. Oh, sorry, okay. Yeah.

Are like six of them mental? Yeah. States of mind.

Uh-huh. Yeah, correct memory, correct effort, correct, you know... Recollection.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, recollection.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Are they? Recollection is mental, yeah.

Sorry. Is the direct perception of emptiness an Arya Path? Yes.

Is it a path? Yes. Is it an Arya Path?

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
It is the Arya Path. Yeah. So would it have the eight components of the Arya Path?

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
I don't think so. No, I don't think it does. Then it's not the Arya Path.

No, then I guess it's not. It's the path of seeing. Are any parts of the Arya Path happening at the path of seeing?

How's that?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, that's better.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I guess, yeah, if you say it that way, then I guess you could say correct view. And would they be the mental parts or the physical parts? Mental.

Yeah. Yeah. So don't tell me there's no state of mind during the direct perception of emptiness.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, that's cool. That's where we're going. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
That's all, okay? Yeah. He's just saying, come on.

Uh-huh. Okay. So we said...

Wow, this is the most satisfying part of the book so far for me.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Or at least of this term. And nowhere did it say... Okay, now this is logically required.

You already went there, but you don't know you went there. Deva lajye to, ki... This should have been in Srimad-Bhagavad-Gita.

It would have been more comfortable. Although sometimes in sloppy, sloppily? Sloppy composition.

You can not use that in Srimad-Bhagavad-Gita, but it's preferable. Yeah. Okay.

Now, are all examples of the eight components of the Arya Path, okay, are all of them only jayatok? No. What's jayatok?

Aftermath. Yeah, the minutes following the direct perception, okay? That's when you have maybe an experience of bodhichitta, or you see your future lives, or...

Okay, stuff like that. You're still sitting on the cushion, okay? So it's called jayatok.

Subsequent. You mean after the 20 minutes? Yeah, yeah.

It's called aftermath. The aftermath, jayatok, okay? So, are all parts of the Eightfold Arya Path, are all eight happening after the direct perception?

Only? No. Yeah, only.

No. Yeah, yeah. Khyapa means only.

If it's part of the Eightfold Arya Path, it must be happening subsequent to the direct perception. Yes or no? No.

No. Yeah, that's what we're saying. But if his statement is correct, that you have no dzinnam, that you have no mind during the direct perception emptiness, then you can't have any of the Eightfold Arya Path during the direct perception.

And then it must have been the case that somebody said, all of the Eight Arya Path happened after the direct perception. Right, right, right. But it's not the case.

Okay, got it? Kandiyama Sumba means no one in the universe ever said that.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, Kandiyama Sumba means... You can't find that anywhere. Kandiyama means nowhere in the scriptures are you going to find somebody who said that.

Kandiyama Sumba. Nobody ever said that in all the scriptures. And they also never said...

No one also ever said, Kandiyama Sumba... It was also not said. No one ever said that the nyamsak part of the tongue, the direct perception part, was not lama.

Okay? No one ever said that. Okay?

No one ever said that the direct perception part of an arya's day, that day, was not a path, meaning not mental. Because everybody knows. He's assuming you know, and your footnotes should say, lam khyenpa dun chik.

Okay? Oh, path and realization are the same. Lam khyenpa nunduk.

Nunduk. Lam khyenpa nunduk dun chik. Okay?

These are famous. Path, understanding, and realization. Abhisamaya.

Nunduk. Abhisamaya. No, nunduk.

I said nunduk. I shouldn't have said that.

[Speaker 2]
Nunduk.

[Speaker 1]
These are dun chik. So, khyenpa and nunduk go together, as understanding in this case? No, they're three separate synonyms.

Lam, khyenpa, nunduk, dun chik. It's in Laura Midway's literature. If you want, I can find it for you.

It's okay. Cool. I don't need the footnote.

Okay? So, no one ever said the direct perception wasn't a path. That means that somebody did say it is a path.

If it's a path, it's a state of mind. If it's a state of mind, you can't say there's no state of mind. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

And now he's getting into kind of semantics? Wimpy, scriptural proofs. Okay.

He finished what he preferred, which is the logical proofs, which were harder. But he's just cleaning up. He's mopping up the military operation.

Chen Long-R has killed everybody. And they're just, you know, putting the bodies in the pile. About the path?

Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
It's like, yeah, and by the way, nobody ever said that. But it's not the main proof. Oh, I see what you're saying.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
You actually could want that.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's a good point. Is somebody threatening me with the end of class?

No. No, we have five more minutes, though. Okay, because I really want to get to this next part because I'm so proud of myself that I found it.

[Speaker 2]
I was with him when I found it.

[Speaker 1]
Keshav, can I just ask you a quick question? That's from the Abhisamaya Lankara? Let's go find it.

Oh, but I want you to get to the next part. We can find it. I can find it.

I've got Ben staying at my house. We can do it.

[Speaker 2]
As a team. As a team, I bet we could do it.

[Speaker 1]
As a team, yeah. I'm going to do it this way, okay? I just remember the wording from in my mind, okay?

I'm going to spell dhunchik two different ways, okay? I'm going to tightly restrict it to two lines, okay? And I'm going to use the...

Dhunchik, dhunchik. I'm going to use the symbol. Oh, dhunchik spelled two different ways.

Yeah, just to cover my rear end. Why not go straight to the tengyur? Yeah.

It's not in the tengyur. Abhisamaya Lankara. Oh, so it's not in Abhisamaya Lankara.

No, it's in the commentary of the Abhisamaya Lankara. It's in the yikchas. Oh, I see.

That's not it. That's not it. Uh-oh.

Uh-oh. This could be a lot.

[Speaker 2]
Well, here's an example.

[Speaker 1]
He says, yun, khenpa, ngunto, ardhunchi. But he didn't say lama. Yeah, we need lama.

All right, we got 30 of them. Yeah, yeah. I guess he meant the perfection of wisdom.

That's not it. That's not it. The mother.

That's cool, though, huh?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Perfection of mother. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Beautiful. Here's an example. John and Shepard probably, given the spacing.

Yeah, it is. It's yun. Yun, khenpa, lama, ngunto, ardhunchi.

Cool. Okay, path, mother, knowledge, and realization are synonyms. Wow.

Beautiful.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Uh-huh. Can we cut this little thing right here? Yeah.

Yeah, you can. Or just, I can, or if we can scroll so I can, well, he'll know if he can control X.

[Speaker 2]
If he can control X, is it, then we'll know. Yeah, page number.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, up, up, and 34B. All right, and then? You can just, you can just shift-click at the page number.

I put the cursor up there and shift-click. Or I do it that way. Okay, how's that?

Yeah, perfect. Automatic. I'll control X.

Where were we? Here, right? Uh-huh.

Yeah, great. Okay. So I like to bold it just so I don't start thinking it's part of the text.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Those backslashes are really irritating. I'm afraid they might affect the search. Someday we should take them out.

Apparently they're in the original. Okay, now, I like this. This next part is very sexy and would make a good talk in Thailand.

Okay. Two minutes left. บางจาบบงสวยละปลน บาง, not บาง, บาง.

บาง. บางจาบบงสวยละปลน. You've got two bars here.

What's Leng Den Je? Well explained. Oh, I'll kiss you.

Scott said I shouldn't say that in the current climate, but I don't care.

[Speaker 2]
Leng Den Je. Leng Den Je is Baba Viveka.

[Speaker 1]
Baba Viveka. How something is eliminated. Okay.

Like an undesirable, sometimes I call Bhangra undesirable quality. Okay. On the subject of how an undesirable quality is eliminated, Baba Viveka shock us.

He posits cases in which a mistaken state of mind establishes a mistake. Aha. Right.

You establish that something is mistaken using a mistaken state of mind. The idea that the pen is coming from its own side is understood through a state of mind which is still seeing things from their own side. That's the example.

Ni sosakye ho kap su. That's at the point before you have the direct perception. Let's not mix them up.

Why did he bring that up? I guess he wants to say that during the direct perception you cannot have a messed up state of mind. So don't start quoting Baba Viveka to me, because he was not talking about the direct perception.

He was talking about the time before the direct perception when Geshe-la was explaining the pen to you. You are necessarily misunderstanding the pen as he explains the pen to you. Aha.

And with misunderstanding the pen you can still understand the pen. You can establish your error during a DCI program using a mistaken perception of the pen to understand the pen. And then Master Baba Viveka gave a worldly example of using a mistaken perception to correct a mistaken perception.

And he was with me. I was playing. I don't know, we were in a break or something here a couple, maybe a week ago.

And I said, let's go try to find it. And it was a mess. It was really hard.

But then finally we ended up putting all of Baba Viveka's four texts into one file and searching that for the word mistake. Wow. And it took a bit of time.

But that's the kind of grunt work that a translator has to be willing to do. And if you're not willing to do that you will never be a great translator. So if you're like impatient with memorizing verbs and stuff you'll never forget it.

You'll never have the patience to look through eleven hundred instances of the word mistake in Baba Viveka. And if you don't want to do that you're going to miss something super sexy here. You won't be able to say, what was his awesome example for establishing that you're using a mistaken state of mind.

Geshe-la, we should probably stop because you have to teach downstairs. When are we supposed to stop? Two minutes ago.

Oh, man. I'm so proud of finding this.

[Speaker 2]
So this is it, right? Yeah, I found it for you.

[Speaker 1]
And it's this Je Tsongkhapa quote. Yeah, Je Tsongkhapa used it. I'm excited.

And he used Uma Nyingbo which is a text by Baba Viveka. Light on the Middle. And I got you Tsongkhapa's commentary.

Cool. So I got you the root text and Tsongkhapa's comment, which clarifies it. Cool.

Thank you. I'm excited. Now we're getting in.

Thank you, Geshe-la. Okay. Chanting Chanting Chanting Chanting Chanting