Классика Алмазного огранщика: Верхний Срединный путь — Великие книги мудрости, занятие 18

[Speaker 1]
Okay, well, let's try it.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Let's try it.

[Speaker 1]
Teitana. You have to read first. Teitana.

Teitana. Teitana. Teitana.

Teitana. Teitana. Teitana.

Teitana. Teitana. Teitana.

Teitana. Teitana. Teitana.

Teitana. Teitana. Teitana.

Wow. Okay, let me see what's going on here. Yeah, indeed.

He's listing something, maybe.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, if that's the case. It's like everything I've said so far in this text.

[Speaker 1]
It would be incorrect to stop the view that things exist. Oh, here we are. Let's just review where we've been.

I'm going to go up to the Nipa. So, we reached the part where, I'm just going to say it quickly. Summarize it.

We already denied the view that nothing exists. Okay? And we just want you to, we're just going to talk about it briefly again to remind you what we said back then.

Okay? And, then we're going to give you some advice that you should listen to our refutation of yutta, the belief that things do exist the way they seem to. Here's the first, where we just briefly touch on why you shouldn't think that things don't exist at all.

Just as a review. Rang de nare. Our own people say, chetanje kornidu nite de, it's wrong to say that all things are empty, because there's many, there's no proof of it anywhere, and also there's a lot of proofs that it's not correct.

Okay? There's no positive proofs, and there's no negative proofs that it's not correct. There are negative proofs that prove that it's not correct.

Dhamma ni. Dhamma ni du dupe, kye pa mi sipe chir. It's impossible that anyone could ever prove emptiness.

And rikpe nirte. Logic proves it's wrong. Ngun sim kyi mikpa mingyur atal, me be ichir.

You could never establish it with a correct, direct perception, because it's something that you already say doesn't exist. Like antlers of a rabbit. Yeah, like a rabbit's antlers.

De na nirte ngun sim kyi mikpe ichir. Therefore, there is a self, right? It does exist.

Well, things do have their own nature. We can see it directly. And furthermore, you're saying that nothing has its own nature is disproved by opposing quotations.

For example, the reference in sutras that dependent origination takes three lifetimes. And we also get very extensive teachings in the Abhidharma, in the first chapter, about the meaning of the heaps, the five heaps, the eighteen categories, the twelve dorsal sense, both as individual objects and as classes. Okay?

Then this is probably root terms, right? Yeah, it's the first half of the third verse. Which I tried to translate, but I...

My answer is... The source of some... No, this isn't my version.

I actually do have a... It's not my version. I don't know.

[Speaker 2]
I don't know where it came from.

[Speaker 1]
I tried, the source of some problems is to stay, having flipped nothingness... This has got to be your notes, probably. Maybe.

That I sent you the wrong thing, by far. You know what? I wrote that in there.

You did? You must have written this. Yeah, it must be my notes.

I must have sent you the wrong part. Let's start with the second line, and then we'll go to the first line. Yeah.

Me ni nabba doktsin ki. We have already... Flipped nothingness?

We have already denied this view that nothing could exist, that everything is just nothing. Nabba doktsin... This is Adam's dokt, got in here also.

But doktsin is a verb. We've already denied that this viewpoint, that nothing at all could exist. Me ni.

And we denied it as the source, the wellspring, from which all nyepas... All bad stay. All bad things spring forth from this viewpoint.

And that's specifically because you won't then believe that karma has any nature, and then you won't avoid bad deeds and do good deeds. Therefore, it's the... Well, it's called in philosophy that metta is called the kunjun for all nyepas.

You want to get every bad quality there is? Just believe nothing exists. Because then you won't believe in the ten good virtues.

Reshik has a lot of meanings. It's always unclear. It can mean for the time being.

And I think what it means here is... All I'm going to say about it here is, you know, it's going to mess you up. Then he goes on to yutta.

Okay? So I think reshik means, you know, just in passing. You know, we already talked about it.

This is the metta, gopa, jemba. This is reminding you that we spent all those pages about denying the viewpoint that nothing exists. That's not what the Buddha said.

But we're not going to go through all that thing here because we just did it already. But reshik, you know, just as a little aside, you know, you just remember, it's going to cause you all the problems there are. Then he goes on.

That's the power of reshik. That's the meaning of the reshik. Okay.

jita-na-jina-le-dee-pa-ga-sa-tam-che sun-jim-pa-la-shuk-pe Because it gets you into... sun-jim-pa, here's that verb again. Yeah, ripping out.

Ripping out. All of your... the roots...

your storehouse of virtue, yeah. Both transcendent and of the world. Yeah, okay.

And it brings down all... it generates, it produces all the sufferings of the hells. The hells and so forth.

And such. It is the cause which produces there. And even if you did do some good karma before, it'll drip by it.

It creates obstacles. Creates obstacles. Therefore, and then you're going to block this down.

It's the wellspring. You guys, I've got to ask a question for you. You've been doing these, isn't that it?

Sorry? Yeah. Do you want to bold it, or do you want to underline it?

I like bolding.

[Speaker 2]
Bold. I like bold.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, bold wins. I kind of prefer bolding.

[Speaker 2]
Unanimous.

[Speaker 1]
It doesn't show up in bad printings, but we're assuming good printings. It's the kun jung wei ne. It is the wellspring of all problems.

Why? Because it involves len de la kun de. Underestimating and overestimating.

No, you will... All the results of underestimating. Yeah, you will speak badly of...

you will say it doesn't matter. Remember Niditawa Dini? He's just catching the root text with the ni.

Yeah. See up here?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
So it means believing that nothing at all need to exist. Kiki lok simpa. Nyi ki.

Because you have already blocked it. Yeah. Okay?

Nyi ki. Re shi ko pa min che do. So he reads the re shi ko as...

For the moment. For the time being. I won't block it again.

But he didn't say that in the verse. It doesn't say it there.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
But that's how he wants to read the re shi ko.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
And I would be tempted to read it that way too. Except that that's not what it says. I mean, he never says in the verse, so I'm not going to block it.

He just... You see what I mean? Yeah.

We haven't even looked at the rest of the verse yet either. Yeah, well, this re shi ko means, you know, for the time being I won't block it. At this point I'm not going to block it again.

Okay. Now we're on to your new stuff. He's fishing for another meaning of re shi ko.

Right. He says, but maybe the re shi ko means... What?

Maybe the Abhidharma sutras have already put a stop to this wrong idea, so I'm not going to... Which wrong idea? The wrong idea that things don't exist at all.

Yeah. Okay, so it could mean the re shi ko means for the time being I'm not going to deal with it. It could mean the Abhidharma sutras already took care of that.

It's already been done. So I don't have to do it here. Who's me?

Gyaltsabje. Or Nagarjuna, because the re shi ko is coming from the root text. Okay.

Are we on to new stuff now? Yeah. Okay.

Go ahead. I already read it. I can't decide.

It's right there. I'm going to split it here. Anybody want to take a shot?

Where is it? It's up there.

[Speaker 2]
First line.

[Speaker 1]
Now we're going to stop with you, that things exist. Furthermore... It wouldn't be correct to just go ahead and deny that things exist?

Monks, the truth. Okay, let's see. The highest truth.

If you're not going to deny the view that nothing exists because it's already been treated, then you should... Deny the view that things exist? You should refuse to treat yutta.

Oh, okay. Because Buddha treated that too. Right, right, right.

This is kachi. If you're not going to talk about the viewpoint that nothing exists because Buddha already covered it, then you shouldn't cover the viewpoint that everything exists the way it seems. Because Buddha already covered that.

Got it? It's not a bad argument. Okay, deta na, if that's the way it is, yutta yang, then even the viewpoint that everything exists the way it seems, gapa merite, you shouldn't be dealing with it.

You shouldn't try to block it. Why? Why?

Because... Now I go to the end of the sentence. Kak simbo.

Buddha already stopped it. Buddha already denied it. No, he didn't.

Yes, he did. And here's a quotation. Gelondar.

All monks. Denpa dampa ni chikte. There's only one ultimate truth.

What? Milue chikten. It can never deceive you.

Milue comes from where? Very famous. It's a big part of the definition of pramana.

Correct. Accurate perception. Correct.

So there's only one thing that won't lie to you. Yang and the denpa.

[Speaker 2]
Nirvana.

[Speaker 1]
Now, does that constitute a denial of yutta? Because he says it does. Any way you can stretch that?

I guess... I mean, we should pause and think about it. We could just go on, but...

To you, does that statement deny that things exist the way they seem? We could make it work. Yeah, he's saying that nirvana is the only thing that won't deceive you, meaning everything else doesn't exist the way that you think it does.

[Speaker 2]
Well, that's good. We would also say that he means natural nirvana. If we want to say he means natural nirvana, and that's the only thing that's not lying to you.

[Speaker 1]
Could be.

[Speaker 2]
That's pretty cool.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, could be. But I like that idea. The implication is that everything else is lying to you.

So you can't say everything exists the way it seems. Yeah. Okay, I like that.

Then our answer... Go. Did you already do this?

You already did this. Yes. Denimitsun.

Denimitsun. You can't say that. No.

What does sumba mean? I don't know. Linked.

Yeah, linked, but it means equivalent. Equivalent, right. That's not the same thing.

Okay. Yeah, Buddha said that about saying that everything exists the way it seems, but it's not the same thing as what he said about... Things that exist the way they...

Nothing exists. Yeah, nothing exists. Yetagopini.

Now he's going to be going like this with his hand, you know. Come on, they're not the same. Yetagopini.

When you're denying that things exist the way they seem... Yeah. Nyen te gi de ne le.

When he did that... In the basket of the listeners. You can go check the scriptures, the collection of scriptures, Pitaka, right, which are Nyen te.

Shravaka Pitaka. Lower way, lower... You can take...

Over here, you can take these lower way scriptures, and he denies in there, meta... The view that things don't exist. That things don't exist at all.

He denies it, lenmang. Now he's starting to get reasons. Lenmang.

In many ways. Len... Question, I mean, sorry, answer.

Not the meaning of the word. Times.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Many times. Okay?

[Speaker 1]
First of all, in these lower scriptures, he denied that things couldn't exist many times. A. B.

Parmepa. There's no middle? Meaning...

This is an idiom for constantly. He never paused.

[Speaker 2]
Without stopping. Yeah, yeah, yeah. He never...

[Speaker 1]
Relentlessly, you can say. You know, he never let up on it. That's what it means.

No par. Par means like a break. Yeah.

And... Shung chit tu yu ta ba shi go pe shung ma sung. And he never sung.

He never mentioned.

[Speaker 2]
He never said. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
In a single shung. In a single main scripture. Where he just blocked yu ta.

Things that do... The viewpoint that things do exist the way they appear to. Yeah.

There's not a single scripture you can point to where he just denied that things exist the way they seem. He always added that they also don't not exist at all. Okay.

So, but the implication there. What's the mayinga? There are times that aren't...

It's not principal texts, but he says in other texts. That's a mayinga. That's one of the mayingas.

But let's say... I'll say it to you again. There's not a single scripture where he just blocked the belief that everything exists the way it seems.

Oh, he blocks that in addition to blocking that things don't exist.

[Speaker 2]
There might be other scriptures.

[Speaker 1]
There are scriptures where he just blocks me ta. Right, right, right. That's the implication.

There are scriptures where he works hard on blocking me ta. Okay. But there's not a single scripture where he just focuses on me ta.

Everything exists the way it is. Okay. So therefore, it never gets its own treatment.

Right. The belief that things exist the way they seem never warranted its own treatment. Therefore, I got to do it.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, got it? Uh-huh.

Okay. Try to get that phrase. Not easy.

So stopping the wrong view that things don't exist. There's Adam's love for God. Yeah.

You can take the opposite of the denial that things don't exist? Yeah, well, what's that mean? Things do exist.

But the opposite case holds with? Yata. Oh, sorry.

Oh, but the opposite case holds with? Neta. Uh-huh.

Meaning he did treat it exclusively in many ways. Right, right. But he treated the fact that it's not true, that nothing exists, many times.

They got their own special treatment. Right. But the idea that everything doesn't exist the way it seems didn't get its own special treatment.

I got to do it. Right, right.

[Speaker 2]
Got it?

[Speaker 1]
And what are the other two reasons? There's many scriptures where he's treated. There are many scriptures where he treated.

Meta.

[Speaker 2]
Yata.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, yata. And he did it constantly. Constantly.

Uh-huh. Isn't that meta? No, it says yata gopini.

Uh-huh. Oh, yeah. Okay.

Got it. Okay. Am I confused?

I feel like I'm confused. I think I'm confused, too. Let's go back.

He says, well, then you should not deal with the idea that everything exists as it seems. Yeah. Okay, why?

Because you don't want to deal with the fact that nothing exists as it seems. You don't want to deal with the wrong idea that nothing exists. Right.

Because you said that was already treated. The idea that nothing exists, yeah. And then he says, yata.

And he says, because it was already treated. Uh-huh. The idea that everything doesn't exist the way it seems to exist was already treated.

Right. So according to you, you shouldn't treat it. Yeah, yeah.

That's how the other guy starts out here. According to you, you shouldn't treat... Then he says, mitsum.

According to you, you shouldn't treat yata either. Right. The other guy says, well, you shouldn't treat yata.

Right, right, right. Why? Well, because Buddha treated it already.

Yeah, yeah. Where? He said that nirvana is the only thing that's real, that's not lying to you.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay? Therefore, everything else is lying.

He already treated yata. Yeah. The belief that everything exists the way it seems.

Yeah. Then, that's the other guy. Uh-huh.

Then we say, ha-ha-ha, not the same thing. Not the same thing. That's not the same thing.

Yeah. Okay. Lenmangdu.

Uh-huh. Not every time. Parme-pa-dang.

Shin-chu-ju-yip-tok. Shi-go-pa-shin-ma-sung-la. There isn't...

I'm sorry. I should have distributed it.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Uh-huh.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. He did not give any treatments where he just treated yata, okay? Uh-huh.

He didn't do it many times in any scripture, and he didn't do it constantly in any scripture. We got to read it to all three. The deny part.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Which... Lenmangdu, A. Uh-huh.

Parme-pa, B. Uh-huh. Not just in a single book, C.

And you've got to spread the ma-sung to all three.

[Speaker 2]
Ma-sung, okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. He didn't treat the idea that all things exist the way they seem many times in one scripture. He didn't treat it constantly, and he didn't devote a special scripture to it.

Uh-huh. How is that not the Heart Sutra? I'm just working here.

All right. But when it got to metta, it's the opposite case. Uh-huh.

When he was denying the idea that nothing exists, he did all three. What? He said it many times.

[Speaker 2]
He said it in lower way scriptures. Constantly. Many times.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. And did devote separate treatments to it. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Okay? Uh-huh. So, Yudhas been shorted all these years, and I'm going to give it the treatment of divorce.

That things don't exist the way they seem. Okay? I think so.

I guess it means that those other things which are so clear, meaning metta, Uh-huh, that scripture is devoted to. I'm not going to go into any logical denials of it.

[Speaker 2]
Uh-huh.

[Speaker 1]
It's just Gyaltsabje reaffirming that he's not going to clarify anything. Because here he stopped. All right.

He already spent so much of his book dealing with it. I think what he's saying here is that Buddha didn't spend a lot of time denying those things because they were so clear. Metas.

Yeah. Metta. Metta.

Oh, no. Ta. Yeah, it's metta.

That's a different thing. Uh-huh. Oh.

[Speaker 2]
Metta. Oh, no way. Metta.

Metta. Metta. Metta.

[Speaker 1]
Me tan to is I'm not going to do it or is that Buddha didn't teach it? Well, that's a good question. Oh, no.

They're not just never done. But they tend to. It has to be Buddha, because he did treat it.

He sure did. The gods in it did treat it. It has to be Buddha didn't go into it in great with great reasons.

OK, got it.

[Speaker 2]
Could we just say that that's the case, in the Nientzsche Daynote?

[Speaker 1]
Shravakapitak.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. I mean, that he didn't do that. Could we say that that's just the case in the listener collection?

[Speaker 1]
We're going to get to that point right now. Great. Here we go.

Please read. Takpachempoi dena le, detar sung shay, mi sam te. Dini nyentir deparang la, drakpe lung la, tene gakpa dze.

Don't aspirate your thoughts. Tene. Good.

Tene gakpa dzepe yimpe chir. Good.

[Speaker 2]
Ona nyewe dulja. No, no, no, stop there. I'm going to cut this one off.

[Speaker 1]
Split it? OK. Takpachempoi dena le.

OK. And please, don't think, don't mentally object to what I just said, mi sam. You shouldn't mentally object to what I just said in your mind by saying, yeah, but he repeated that constantly in the scriptures of the greater way.

[Speaker 2]
Right, right, right.

[Speaker 1]
Don't think like that. Uh-huh, got it. That clarifies that.

Gyaltsabje is talking to your heart. Because what comes up in your mind is, yeah, he did. He constantly cut glak, glak, metak.

Because he did it in the present paramita. Hey, man, you're wearing the wrong hat. What hat have we got on in this scripture?

Kind of. Yeah, we're Hinayana.

[Speaker 2]
In what scripture?

[Speaker 1]
The whole 60 verses. In this book. It's meant to prove to lower way people that Buddha taught them emptiness.

With their scriptures. But they didn't get it. So we don't reference higher way books.

This is Nagarjuna beating the lower Hinayana with their own weapons, with their own books. So Gyaltsabje is like, yay, that's not the rules of the game here. The game here is to prove to the lower way that the lower way teaches emptiness.

Don't go thinking about some, me some. Don't go thinking about, oh, but he taught it in the metak. He blocked metak in the higher way.

Yeah. OK, got it? Here we're using listener scriptures.

Yeah, good. So stop using our conventions or something? No, let's read it backwards.

Yeah. Oh, OK. Stop.

Because what we're doing is we're doing a gata. Refutation. Based on.

Based on. The scriptures. The scriptures of the listeners.

[Speaker 2]
Which are current.

[Speaker 1]
Gata means current or accepted by.

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

[Speaker 1]
Known among. Kyabda means advertisement into them. We've seen them in the internet.

Interface, sound. Among the Nyantadeva. They're current among the listeners.

Yeah, we're just putting ourselves rande to their own books. Got it. Don't think like that.

Now, these are very interesting points. This is a very interesting point. The next point is kind of intriguing.

Of course, they're always intriguing. Which one here? Ona.

Oh. Please read. Ona.

Nyewe dulja dedagla chomden de, ki yeta. Gope herpa gye par miton chena. It's a question.

Give me that much. So let's put it. Ona nyewe dulja dedagla chomden de, ki yeta.

Gope herpa gye par miton chena. So Buddha, if you ask how we could say that Buddha didn't teach? No.

Go backwards. If you say, chena, miton, Buddha didn't teach gye par. Widespread logic.

Extensively. Extensive logic. Reasons, reasoning, which would block the way that things exist the way they seem.

Didn't he give these reasons to his nyewe duljas? To his close students.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, his close students.

[Speaker 1]
So I admit, we don't see it in the scriptures. But wouldn't it be the case that to his own students, he did put a lot of effort into his reasons why things don't exist the way they seem. Didn't he?

Wouldn't he? So the guy's kind of conceiving the point. Yeah, I agree it's not in scripture.

But wouldn't he have said these things to his own students, his own close students? Oh, wouldn't he have? A lot?

Then here's our reply. Te dag ni. Sorry, try again.

Te dag ni gyu mimpa yinpe, bepa chenpo tenmi gula, chukhi dakme dzokpar gompa mepe so. OK. Those whose mind streams were ripe.

[Speaker 2]
Good.

[Speaker 1]
Their mind streams were already ripe. Their minds were already ripe. Who?

His close students.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, the close disciples.

[Speaker 1]
Therefore, me guk. He didn't need to. He didn't have to teach.

With bepa chenpo. With great effort. Bepa and sundro vasem.

OK.

[Speaker 2]
Oh.

[Speaker 1]
OK. Bepa and sundro vasem. He didn't have to put a lot of sweat into it.

Right. Chukhi dakme. The selflessness of things.

They didn't need to meditate on the, to do a complete meditation on the selflessness of things. They were meditating in the full form about the lack of self to things. Now, how is that relevant here?

No idea. Does metta or yutta swing more towards chukhi dakme? Not that I've ever heard, but I'm assuming yutta.

Mm. Sorry. Uh-oh.

All right, well.

[Speaker 2]
Mm.

[Speaker 1]
Thanks, man. Mm. Bepa chenpo tenme gala.

Classic Gyaltsabje. Well, sometimes you just go around and see if it sheds light on what you can't get. More help.

And I think it will help. So let's go on to the next sentence. Ona, nyewe dulja tekpa chenpo la yang tsung she na.

Kyunme de, sheja shepa hlur lempada, chukhi dakme gyepar gompe chiru. OK, go. OK, well then, the close disciples of those Mahayana disciples.

Tsung? Tsung, question mark? Yeah, they, I don't know.

Tsung? We just had Tsung. Yeah, no.

Tsung. I think I'm in agreement. Is the case the same?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, right.

[Speaker 1]
What's the case the same question, with his close disciples who were Mahayana? Which is a mainga. What's the mainga?

[Speaker 2]
Because the elder of the nensus.

[Speaker 1]
He said he was before talking about the close disciples who were a listener tribe. Yeah, so sometimes it helps to go on. And then you can think back to what you couldn't understand.

Right. OK, so, well, so the guy comes back and says, well, what about his close disciples that were Mahayana?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, no problem.

[Speaker 1]
Did he go into yata with them, the idea that nothing is the way it seems? Did he go into it with them? Is that Shena misspelled?

[Speaker 2]
No, that's the essence of it.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, OK, yeah, yeah. Rarely.

[Speaker 2]
Shena.

[Speaker 1]
Kinmete. Kinmete, that's no problem. No, mayowente.

Very common in India.

[Speaker 2]
Padukone.

[Speaker 1]
Oh my god, we have a problem.

[Speaker 2]
Chinese.

[Speaker 1]
Kinmete. Sheja, shepa, sol lemba. This means they enjoy learning more stuff, OK?

They have an appetite for learning more things. Sheja means knowable thing. Shepa, sol lemba means they like to jump in.

Give me more. It's famous, famous, famous in scripture that only Mahayana people want a lot of reasons why things are empty. And Hinayana people are like, don't overwhelm me.

Give me one or two good reasons. I don't need more. Stuck with this breath.

And Mahayana, the bodhisattvas, they're like, oh, give me more. Give me more reasons. Sheja, shepa, sol lemba.

They want to know more. They're like hungry. Is sol, they like it?

Sol lemba is an idiom that means to be hungry for more. They jump in. Her lemba means literally, they take it with gusto.

They're like, yeah, give me more. And now here's the answer to our last sentence. Chikki dagme kipa.

Oh, am I in the right place? Yeah. Chikki dagme, the selflessness of things, kipa rinpoche.

Oh, so that's why they do meditation. No, there's no B, there's no bow. Yeah, it's just a separate statement.

It's not connected to the earlier point he made. They like to eat stuff. Chikki dagme kipa gompa yin.

They do meditate extensively on the lack of self to things. But as we saw in Venerable Udpala's text, the lower two schools are focusing mostly on the emptiness of the person. Bhakti, dharma, and chikki dagme.

They're not so interested in proofs for things. Their main goal is to stop the idea of the self nature of a person. They don't get into things like that.

First two schools. So don't forget, we're in this world. Therefore, the last sentence must have meant.

I mean, from the previous? Yeah. Chikki dagme zopa gompa me.

They weren't meditating on the lack of self to things. He said, in its full form. Yeah, he's covering his rear end.

So the kipa here is as opposed to the dzogpad. Yeah, those guys didn't meditate on the emptiness of things in their entirety, in its entirety. On the other hand, the Mahayana students, they did it extensively.

So now we know what the earlier sentence meant. Kind of. I mean, we don't know what he means by extensively or not.

Would it be worth trying to figure out more?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
Because that's just way too obscure. Yeah, it is. OK.

It's not something somebody would write. I mean, if you wanted to, you could go to the classic things in the yicthas about bodhisattvas enjoying. They call it rinpoche.

They want 100 pages. But it means 1,000. They want 1,000 pages.

Like in Umachitin, when they're talking about it. They'll talk about it. They'll say, bodhisattvas, they want rinpoche.

They want to hear 1,000 reasons.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. OK.

[Speaker 1]
Literally infinite. Wait, did I? Did you skip something or am I?

I don't think so. Nipa ni.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, OK. I just cleaned it up.

[Speaker 1]
This is the next yicthas verse, by the way. Oh, wow. Wait, so we never got the rest of verse three?

Well, I don't know. That's weird. You got a root text running around?

No. I don't have a root text running around. I do have it somewhere.

Oh, it's right here. OK. Even better.

Let's see. By the way, verse three has no Sanskrit in the text that we have without Sanskrit. Oh, that's interesting.

We do not root text. Nope, I get it. Was that Giga?

That was Ganga Lojuma, wasn't it? I think we got different versions of the root text. Shiva.

Shiva's unique. Wow. Oh, look at my note here.

I got it again. Oh, this is my note in the root there. There seems to be a limitation.

This is this verse? Yeah. Oh.

Oh. Yeah, I made my own note. I had a similar problem.

But it could be not missing. They divide into fourths pretty well without it. Oh, this is weird.

This is the, well, he has the beginning of the next. Yeah, he does. Yeah.

That's not illegal, you know. But I'll tell you, looking at it quickly, he's sticking to four lines. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
It's not like words text. Or who else's text is doing that? You mean mixing?

Some people's text. Abhidharma's splitting in the middle of the line. He just memorized a different version?

Somebody had a terrible one. He split a noun off from this, G-I-S, and put it in a different section. Your book.

Sabangi? Yeah, your book said, I'm going to discuss the vowels in six different categories. Therefore, you should listen.

And no, he says, because I'm going to split the vowels into six categories, you should listen. And then he cuts it. Your author says, and so you should listen.

He has a separate section about that. But Dukhi Jishinche, sorry, I will explain them in six. He cuts off, I will explain.

Even though it comes before. He cuts it off, puts it down. You'll get confused when you do it.

6A, 6B in your text. He cuts off the front, and he puts it down below, and he says, that's the promise to compose the word. Cut that off.

I'll explain in six sets of vowels. Take out, I will explain. Put it down in the records.

You didn't notice. OK. So I guess I'm going to have to find as many versions as I can.

You know, in this case, I would just get a few more ten-year versions. That's why I made my own note to myself and said, maybe not. There's two, oh, no, I see.

He attached the first one. Because everything works fine without that line. You've got four, four, then Gelser J was five.

But what Gelser J was, it took the second two lines of verse three and put it together with that extra line, plus the first line of what we have in that verse, and that's verse four. He could be using a different translation from the Sanskrit. I don't know.

I can see this. I mean, I could look at it a little bit now, or I could just do it later. Let's go.

Let's just go. Yeah, deal with it later.

[Speaker 2]
OK.

[Speaker 1]
Ask Jigme if I knew. She's good. She'll find you three or four ten-years and compare them.

Jigme, would you do that? She's good at that. She did it for me recently.

What did you do for me? Well, I'm slowly downloading. It takes a long time.

She has to download the whole volume.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, you want me to download all the ten-years?

[Speaker 1]
TBRC doesn't cut the ten-year up. Yeah, right, right, right. The volume might have 20 books in it.

I'm currently having them as backup work inputs in our tongue ten-years. By the way, TBRC, which is our sister organization, which is based in Boston, who scans books but doesn't input them, we invited the director to come watch what we're doing. And he will come in the last few days of the term.

And we've set aside $10,000 US from the money that people give me cash in different places. And we're going to make a presentation of $10,000 cash to them here. Who's them?

Is it more than just Jeff, or is it more than them?

[Speaker 2]
To TBRC.

[Speaker 1]
Jeff, he's coming. They're not huge. They do huge work, but it's only four or five people.

And it's hard to fund. They have one Lama who's helping them, but they don't have a lot of money. And they're always asking for money.

Right now, online, they're asking for money. So I thought it would be really, without them, we couldn't survive. They're constantly giving us books.

And they've been very generous to us. And they haven't asked for anything. They gave us all the scans.

They gave us the hard drives with all their scans, five million scans, free. They say, here. Then I lost it.

[Speaker 2]
OK. No, not really.

[Speaker 1]
So should we just stick with Jetsub J's version?

[Speaker 2]
Let's see how the commentary goes.

[Speaker 1]
If everything he gave is in his commentary, it means he thinks he's working with a different text. OK, here we go. OK, do we want to try to do the verse, or do you just want to go to the commentary?

I'll just take a shot at the verse. It's not wise, but why not? I think I might have it.

If anybody can do it, Ken. Well, first of all, I put comments in here, but we don't know. OK, anyway, let's take a shot.

We might have to change it around later. OK, read, please. Nipaani, rikpa gangi ye ni kang, dokpar gyurwa nyampar gi.

Okne chey par gyurwa yi, jita ji pey nam takshin. Rikpa, so nyampar gi is the first part, OK? This gi is not instrumental.

Does it help you? Oh, really? Who can tell me?

It's disjunctive.

[Speaker 2]
What do you mean, to give?

[Speaker 1]
That's only with genitives. Is it to give or to do? It's imperative tense.

I'll give you a clue. Oh. Do it.

[Speaker 2]
Use logic?

[Speaker 1]
No, do it. Gi is 99.9999% it means by or with. Right.

0000001% it means do it. OK. OK, and here it's do it.

Especially if it's at the end of a line. That's a verb? Yeah, it's B-D-Y-D.

But then, it's in the prayer word. Oh, ye ni. In your list, brother.

[Speaker 2]
Sure it is.

[Speaker 1]
So it's a very, very, very difficult word. Rikpa gangi. It's the imperative of the ancient word, do it.

Wow. And he wants you to nyan. He wants you to listen?

Yeah, listen to me now, OK? Please listen. Listen up.

Nyanpa gi. Oh, sorry. Yes.

Nyanpa gi, listen up. Why? I'm going to give you the rikpa, the logic, that we use.

Gangi means what that we use to prove ye ni. Stuff. To prove that things aren't ye ni.

Yeah, things don't exist the way that they appear to.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, good.

[Speaker 1]
OK? He could have said yu ta, but he said ye ni. I'm going to present to you the logic that we use, and then understood to prove that the view that everything is the way it seems is not true.

But he doesn't say that. Dopa, yeah, he does say it, dopa. That we use to deny the idea that everything exists the way it seems.

Listen up now. I'm going to present to you the reasons that we use to prove that things are not the way they seem. That's the first two lines.

Whether the next two lines are real, or I don't know, he had a dream. But let's see how he glosses the next two lines. Let's get the pieces, because it's more dramatic.

OK. OK, okne. From there on down.

Okne chepar gyur is pretty common. From there on down, I'm going to explain. Which I intend to explain later.

Later, yeah, yeah, yeah. OK, that's a pretty common phrase, which I intend to explain below. Okne.

You know okne? Below. It's a heaven called below.

This is okne. Three minutes, Krishnaji. Jita chiva nampakshin.

Chiva here is as opposed to papa. Right, two year olds. Two year olds.

Infants. That means the way they examine things. Uh huh.

So the way kids examine things. Uh huh. It's like the way, that's all it says, right?

I'm going to explain later on how it is that kids examine things. Meaning how people who haven't seen emptiness think things are. How he reads that into his text, we're going to see.

Let's go fast. We can do a little bit. Two minutes, yeah, yeah.

OK, shesokirikpagangi yirpar tawanyikyan tendrelki tentsik sokki tokpar gyurwa shikirnyenpar gyi she dampao. She dampao. Dampa is meant to help you not misread the ki.

Uh huh. OK, what's dampa? Advise.

Yeah, yeah. The author, the gardener, is putting in a word. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

He's advising us to... Where do you see this dampa? Very common.

[Speaker 2]
Kadampa.

[Speaker 1]
Kadampa, yeah. Yeah, or many places. So he's giving us some friendly advice, hey man, just listen up.

Uh huh. Say, hey man, listen up. Nyenpa gyi.

Dampao. Uh huh. He's giving us some advice.

What? Uh... What's a listener?

Yeah. Rinpakangi. What's the lahi that we use, OK, to dog, next line.

Deny. To stop the idea. Yeah.

To stop the idea that things could exist the way they seem to, OK. And what's the most famous reason we use? Well, we're going to use dendroketensi.

We're going to use the proof of interdependence. We're going to use Sugeng's book. Dependent origination.

We're going to use Sugeng's book. Dendroketensi. We're going to use the famous...

Tensik means the reasoning. Could this be the reasoning from HCI for the reasoning of interdependence?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, it is. Yeah, Rinpakangi.

[Speaker 1]
Et cetera. So, you want to know what we use against Yuta? We use dependence.

In what schools?

[Speaker 2]
All of them. But we're talking about all of them.

[Speaker 1]
Well, here's lower schools. Here's lower schools. Because the Abhidharma has this long 12 links presentation.

Which he'll get to when he's 90. OK. Uh, OK.

Yeah. Uh, you want to go a little bit more? I would love to.

We have no minutes. Kyangi ja jyepar mirikte. Meta gope bepa.

Mi jyepar tenpe so shena. Kyonme de yuta yang.

[Speaker 2]
Wait, wait. Let's just go to this question.

[Speaker 1]
Let's get the question, which is kind of sexy. So, we'll take off the kyonme de, right? Kyangi da jyepar mirikte.

What's it mean? Anybody want to take a guess? Kyangi da jyepar mirikte.

Only by what we've expressed as not... OK. Cancel that.

It's not logic? It's not correct reasoning to listen to just the words or just the subject?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
Look at the first line. Oh, OK. Because technically, what Nagarjuna said was, listen up.

We're going to give you reasons for denying yuta also. Then now, kachi, shen... Oh, you said kyong, yeah.

So, shenlu? Shenlu comes up and says, why is he saying also? Why say also?

He's glossing the kyong, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Why you say also? Yeah. Why is he asking that question?

Why do you say we're also going to deny yuta? Because they already made great efforts in denying meta. Yeah.

No, he says you refuse to treat meta. Now you say, let's also explain yuta.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, so he's pissed. OK.

[Speaker 1]
You're the guy who refused to treat the idea that nothing exists. And now you say, I'm also going to treat the idea that everything exists. Then the guy says, why he say also, man?

Duh. I think we should stop. Jiminita, let's not go with meta.

You said you wouldn't make any effort. You already said you weren't going to put any threat into denying meta.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Why you say also?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, yeah. I'm going to translate.

[Speaker 1]
I'm not going to fix your car, but I'm going to cook you dinner.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
I'm not going to fix your car, but I'm also fixing you dinner.

[Speaker 2]
Ha, ha, ha. What do you mean also?

[Speaker 1]
Got it? Yeah. I got out that one.

Ha, ha. It's snowing.

[Speaker 2]
Sashi Pukhi Jukshin Me Thok Tram Prirabhlingshin Yindekhen Padi Sangye Shingdum Ikte Uwargi Chokkun Dhamdak Shingla Jhupar Shok Inam Guru Ratnamandala Kam Niryatayami Gewa Di Gewo Gun Sunam Yeshe Tsog Tsog Shing Sunam Yeshe Le Jung We Dhamma Kunyi Topar Shok Thank you, Geshe-la.

[Speaker 1]
That's fun. We didn't get out of it. We did it.

That's awesome. Yeah, we did, but... Maybe it's going to get easier from here on out.

I'm sure. You're like the person who doesn't say five stanzas or two stanzas and says, Well, these will hit me later. I didn't do that.

We both do that. When I use a little more. I don't think I like that.