Классика Алмазного огранщика: Верхний Срединный путь — Великие книги мудрости, занятие 33

[Speaker 2]
Because they don't believe that the soul is part of the body.

[Speaker 1]
So if we should accept the Sankhyas as Buddhists because they believe things are produced, what would that, or how does that kind of, in the text, how does that become something that we start discussing about Buddhists? It's that, and I'm not even sure I understood this very well. I just wanted to talk about it a little bit.

It raises the question that lower schools accept that things aren't what they seem. So that could mean that they're all middle way. Gautam J says that we are confusing sets and subsets.

And so Tibetan for set and subset used in the text. Oh yeah, we had a new word. A different word that was a combination of words that you know.

[Speaker 2]
Right. It's Rick.

[Speaker 1]
No, but you're not, maybe you're not far off. Khyabja and Khyabje. Oh yeah.

And I was. The pervader and the pervaded. Yeah, I just noticed that.

So which is which? I know. That's my, I believe that.

Which one's which? Still, Geshe-la has to tell us, but I think Khyabja is the set and then Khyabje is the subset. Which one's the big one?

[Speaker 2]
Opposite.

[Speaker 1]
Khyabje is Kars and Khyabja is Toyonas. Oh, right, right, right.

[Speaker 2]
Pervader, so that's the pervading. Okay, that's the pervaded.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. We've reached this, this is an easier question, maybe. We've reached the second part of the division that happened earlier in the text.

What are these divisions? Tibetans? We've reached the second part.

Does that sound familiar at all to anyone? The second part of the division. I'm just curious if it even sounds familiar.

So we reached the Nipa. The divisions were...

[Speaker 2]
Oops.

[Speaker 1]
There was a proof. So he was talking about... He went all the way back to that verse by Joseph Day where we were talking about people who haven't...

who see things normally. Does that include... does that mean that since they're seeing...if people who see things normally see things correctly does that mean that they've reached Nirvana? Is that a tongue-ear? It is a tongue-ear. And then we reached finally after a long time the incidental points that were attached to that tongue-ear.

Specifically we made a defense of the fact that it is a tongue-ear. He was just presenting that as a tongue-ear to say that it's silly to think that people with ear power see things correctly. Okay, I think we did argue that.

I think we got into a big thing about whether or not that was a tongue-ear. I think that was a different tongue-ear earlier in the text. What would be the karmic results of believing in Yipa or believing in Nipa?

Oh, that I've got. Yeah, let's see if someone else can get it. It's looking like he's almost got it.

[Speaker 2]
Synapses are firing.

[Speaker 1]
Activating. Anybody else? Tim's close.

Yeah, you could say that. That might help you remember. That might help you remember the answer.

Oh, you don't know what's Yipa or Nipa? Stanley, tell Asa what's Yipa or Nipa. Okay, I can tell.

Well, hold on. Specifically, that's true. That's what the words literally mean, but when we use it in this text and in general, Geshe Michael said it earlier today, Yipa and Nipa.

They're kind of beliefs. They're true extremes. That's a minor part of the question you've answered.

Yipa is absolutism and Nipa is realism. So what would be the karmic results of believing in them? Yipa sends you to heaven and Nipa sends you to hell.

It was kind of cute. Totally not heaven in a good way either. Higher rebirths and feeling good.

And then Nipa is being stuck in samsara and then lower rebirths and suffering. Actually, the lower rebirths and suffering part came in the verse that we didn't translate yet. It's just the next line down.

But the being stuck in samsara part we did cover at the very end of my last class. Finish your exhibition, por favor. Okay.

He said I'm going to give you a donut after your fasting is over.

[Speaker 2]
What a good guy.

[Speaker 1]
I seem to hear that in every sentence. I don't care what you say. I think Nick's alright.

Hey, my pleasure. Oh, that's pretty good. Tell her I drank it.

It was not as good as Vimla's almond milk, but it was okay. No, don't say that. Here we go.

Go for it. Where were we? Okay.

Tawa? I knew you said that. You guys are trying harder and I appreciate it.

Okay. You're actually pausing and thinking. It's what Sugeng does all the time.

Let that Singaporean show us off. That Indonesian farmer. If you're feeling low, ask him to do his Indonesian farmer imitation.

And then you will cheer up. Therefore, those views, those two views are the very cause of samsara. And the two views are here.

Everything exists, or everything doesn't exist. Either everything exists the way it seems to, or if it doesn't, then nothing's real at all. Then it has no reality at all.

Which are the two classic yata and metta. Two classic extreme views. He says those two are the cause of everything in samsara.

I didn't read this, I couldn't understand it until I was just sitting here with Nick, and suddenly it hit me. What's sangwa mean? Pure?

Yeah, or clean. But mitsangwa is also a synonym for pupu. The unclean.

Yeah, it's a name for pupu in ancient scripture. So, that would be like trying to clean pupu up with... Poop.

Poop. Okay. Right.

And everything Geltsap says is like that. Everything he says has a deeper point, and most of the time it just goes over our head, you know. Anyway, using either concept, accepting either viewpoint, that everything exists the way it seems to, or if it doesn't exist that way, it can't exist at all, using either one of those viewpoints, it's like trying to clean poop with poop.

Can we translate it with polishing a turd? Hey, you're the translator! I'm going to think about polishing a turd with a turd.

I like it. I think it's beautiful. Polishing a turd with a turd.

I like it.

[Speaker 2]
Mingyur or Shindu?

[Speaker 1]
And if you... Well, he used sort of a high word for pupu. Trying to out-physicize or something.

Tarpa means cleaned up, right? Yeah, you can't get perfume by using poop on poop. Okay.

Shindu. Cho or Mingyur?

[Speaker 2]
You won't be freed by that.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, you would never be liberated by the... As long as you're held to those two viewpoints, you would never be free. And to prove that, he has a lungi drupche.

Rinchen Trela. He proves it with a statement from Rinchen Trela. Ratnavali.

Yeah, or Ratnamala, Ratnavali, same thing. But not money Ratna. Just kidding.

Okay. Cho-pu? Cho-cho?

No. Ratnamala. Go.

I've got to turn the ignition. Go. Give me some poetry sound.

Dun-pa-dun-pa-pum-pa-pum. Yeah, not so clumsy. Yu-pa-pa-de-den-do-do.

Me-pa-pa-de-gen-do-do. Okay, it's poetry. It's poetry.

Okay. Who is it? Arya Nagarjuna.

Yeah, so there's an extra pressure here. Oh, I guess you don't accept Arya Nagarjuna in your discussion of Arya Nagarjuna. Okay.

Okay, here we go. So, in the String of Jewels, and it means a rosary made of like diamond balls, you know, diamond beads. Yeah.

And I looked it up because I thought it might have to be Yu-pa-wa. But it's not. He really wants to say E-R.

Those existeners, they're not, those existeners, they're going to go to the higher realms. And those nonexisteners, they're going to go to the hell realms. But neither of them gets out of the Wheel of Life.

That's the implication. Okay. And that's a good proof for saying you can't clean poopoo poop.

You accept either one, you have a problem. Which was his assertion, right? She-sung-so.

Then he leaves it at that. Okay. Now, the second part from above, and I gave it to you.

Okay. Here. Read.

Nye-pa-ni. A little bit. This is, this root text, so in my version, maybe you took it out of yours, there was like a quote here.

Oh, I got it. Okay, sorry. I was taking a different version.

I put a note in here.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
It's just confirming the Yu-pa-pa and the Me-pa-pa. Got it. So either they're both wrong, which is probably unlikely.

Uh-huh. Probably unlikely? Anyway.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
This is the rest of the verse. Wait, wait. I want you to read this part.

Good. It says, this is a typical Buddhist text where it says part two. And it doesn't tell you what it is.

So your responsibility is to go back and find what is part two. Okay, what is, he'll say, now we've reached part two, and he just jumps into it. There's no chapter heading.

We put them in our text. It's the one thing we do include in our translations. It's the one, and I'll tell you something interesting.

When I tried to do that with Yeshe Wongchuk's text, Rinpoche objected. Because he said, who are you to put categories in this guy's text? I wanted to have chapters, you know.

And he said, who are you to run it one straight book from beginning to end? No chapter headers, no sections. You know, I'm like, Rinpoche, and he said, who are you to add to this person's work?

So, but now I get to do it. By the way, I've seen it badly done, and the problem is it looks like the author. Right, you know, so.

They often have an outline, but they don't, no, someone else will often write an outline. Sabje to the Lamrim Chamu is memorized by many people. The outline to the great Lamrim of Tsongkhapa is a separate book.

Well, no, it was derived from his book. Yeah. Okay, anyway.

So, I filled it in for you. Translate, Niinmey Topey Thor Tenpa. Not easy.

Realizing the absence of the discrepancy is freedom, or something like that? Yeah, you could say that. A demonstration, Tenpa, that you can get free if you finally realize how there's no discrepancy.

There's no two. That's the Tenpa I assume? Yeah.

Demonstration that... So, these two, aren't the two used, guess what? I believe it is, actually.

Well, he's going to give a new Niinmey. Okay, it's going to be Ngopo and Ngumey. Neither Ngopo, nor Ngumey.

Functioning thing or non-functioning thing. Neither functions or non-functions. Well, he's going to discuss it, because Ngopo can mean all things.

Right. It can be a synonym for chö. Or sometimes it can mean functioning thing.

So, it's bhava in Sanskrit. So, it's... you don't know until you get into the explanation whether he's talking about all things, or he's talking about all working things.

Okay? But the two here is going to be choosing between Ngopo and Ngumey. Don't choose.

The choice is don't choose.

[Speaker 2]
Uh-huh.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, and that's what Niinmey means here. No duality. Okay.

If someone says, I'll give you a choice. Is everything real, or is everything unreal? We say, neither of the above.

Right. Okay. You can translate it as neither of the above.

Okay, Niinmey here means neither of the above. Okay. Okay.

And I assume this is good text. I didn't have time to bold it out. Translate.

Take your time and translate. Think about it. Tie the pieces together.

Or here, uh, totally understanding what's real and not real.

[Speaker 2]
You see?

[Speaker 1]
Totally understanding what's real and not real. Uh-uh. Come on, human dictionary.

Good. Those mahatmas who realize. You see?

Yeah. Yeah, because they understand the difference between reality and unreality, what's real and what's unreal. Yeah.

Those mahatmas get free.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Get freedom. Okay. He's talking about Bodhisattvas.

Well, it doesn't have to be Bodhisattva, does it? It could be lower. General superfellas.

Yeah. So, the Tibetans from Mahatma is Dang Nyingchen Mo. And it means those great beings.

Those great beings who realize that they should neither accept that things exist or accept that things don't exist. They should go between. Okay.

Or real or unreal. Okay. Yeah, here it's not functioning thing or non-functioning thing.

It doesn't mean that. What's real and unreal. Yeah.

Yeah, what's real and what's unreal. Cool. It depends on the context.

Okay? Yeah. Okay.

Kelp. Cherry. Please.

And don't say gel. I definitely said kelp. I'm sure.

Okay, kelp.

[Speaker 2]
Otherwise we'd probably fall off.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and even your food smells good today. Okay. Just kidding.

Yeah, this is really sweet. Yeah, you cannot become free from the discrepancy if your view contradicts that. No.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
You can't reach freedom if you believe either that everything is as it seems or that if it's not that way, it doesn't exist at all. Okay. Kelpe, if you're stuck in either of those two places, if you're, right?

Kelpe. If you're stuck in either one of those two places, you're never going to get liberated. I prefer to use liberated for jhol, and I prefer to use free for...

[Speaker 2]
Tarpa.

[Speaker 1]
Tarpa, and sometimes it's a difference. Okay? So let's just make that a standard.

So, if believing things exist can't get me free, and believing things don't exist can't get me free, well, what can get me free? Kangidro was left. Okay?

Yeah, shena. And then, Gyaltsabje being a hard... probably the hardest core religion in Tibetan history, which is the problem with this text.

He's like, you met nungel. Nungel, they're in direct contradiction? They are in direct contradiction, but what he means to say is pensum pangyal.

You can't have... It's the kind of contradiction that eliminates all other possibilities. Big contradiction.

You see? Like, changing and unchanging. That's a pensum pangyal.

Everything in the universe is either one or the other. Yeah, it's a mutually exclusive. One has to be true.

They cover everything in the universe. Blue and not blue. Anything that's not in that category don't exist.

Okay, blue and not blue. Exhaustive contradictions. He means to say pensum pangyal, which is, they are exhaustive contradictions.

Blue and not blue are pensum pangyal. Blue and yellow are just gyal. Okay?

No one thing can be both. All blue or all yellow. A blue angel's hat can be both.

Helmet? Hat. Okay.

But no... A blue angel's helmet can be blue and yellow, but it can't be all yellow and all blue at the same time. Okay?

But, there's other colors. There's other colors possible. But this kind of gyalwa, blue and not blue, I mean, everything in the universe is either one.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
So, the guy's question is reasonable. Eminently reasonable. Okay?

Look, gyalwa... I mean, look, whoever you are, Nagarjuna, either things exist or they don't exist. And you tell me both of those are taking me to hell?

I mean, cut me some slack here. Okay? There's nothing else left.

There's no pungsumbha. That's what he means.

[Speaker 2]
There's no pungsumbha.

[Speaker 1]
So, the point is not that they're in contradiction, but the point is more focused on... The point is that they're exhaustive. Yeah.

Therefore, since if those two, you know, since those two are exhaustive contradictions, jawa mithi, it's impossible to become liberation. I guess you must be saying we can't achieve liberation. If believing things exist can't get you liberated, if you believe, if when you believe that things exist, you cannot be liberated, and if when you believe things don't exist, you can't be liberated, then you can't be liberated.

Okay? Okay? If you think that to yourself, now we're going to get an explanation.

And by the way, this, these two lines are a response to this objection. Okay? Nagarjuna's two lines are a response to this objection.

Got it. Okay. Yeah, I got hung up on shikpa, because it's a tense of the word destroy, but it's a weird tense that nobody uses.

And it can also mean examine, as you can see in this dictionary entry that I put in there. But, in rare cases, it can mean a. Okay?

Yeah, shik. There's another possibility. It means pungsubha shik.

Okay? There is a other thing that's not in those two, is what I'm talking about. And, yeah, here's how he says it.

He says, ngupa lama tenpa, ngupa mepa. Just because you can't, just because you refuse to deal with existing things, doesn't mean you're dealing with non-existing things. I'll say it again.

Just because you refuse to deal with existing things, doesn't mean you want to deal with non-existing things. Okay? Just because you refuse that something is real, doesn't mean you've said it's unreal.

Okay? Because, ngupa shinti, there might be another alternative. Okay?

There might be some other alternative. And that's what we're calling not real, which means empty. Unreal, in the sense of empty.

We don't mean non-existent when we say unreal. We mean another possibility. That's what this sentence says.

Okay? When we deny that things exist, we're not saying they don't exist. We're just saying they exist in a different way.

Okay? That you didn't think of. Don't say ngupa mepa, but ngeme.

And that's what we mean by ngeme, that there's another option than ngupa mepa. Yeah, yeah. Holy moly.

Okay? Alright. That's okay.

Now he's going to put it the other way. He's going to flip it. Same point.

This is Gyatso Jay. He's amazing. You're amazing.

Ngame la martem par ngopo minjup te. Ngame ma ka par ngopo minjup te. Yeah, so it's just the opposite.

Ngame la martem par. And just because you refuse to deal with non-existing things doesn't mean that it can exist.

[Speaker 2]
Well, this one's tough, okay?

[Speaker 1]
It's worse than that. You can still deny the existence. You cannot be referring to unreality.

When you refuse to deal with unreality, okay? When you refuse to deal with unreality, it's not necessarily the case that you're dealing with reality.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Because... Because those are not established as existing things? If you didn't refuse things that didn't exist, if you refuse to cancel things that don't exist, that doesn't mean you're going to things that do exist.

Okay, it's difficult. It's not quite right. It doesn't quite fit.

It'd be more comfortable for me if it were mun min kak. You know, maybe you want to check, but I have a feeling he means it. I mean, it would be nice if a word was missing, or he left out a word.

I mean, if he put in a word that wasn't there. But I have a feeling it is this, and I have a feeling he's being super cute. So you got to chew on that, okay?

Mun min ma ga. If you don't refuse the unreal, after all, you don't come up with the real, do you? So let's leave it like that.

Okay, I'll say it again. If you don't refuse the unreal, which means you accept the unreal, okay, it doesn't mean there can't be things that are real. If you don't refuse the unreal, it doesn't mean you don't accept the real.

Very cute, I guess. Okay, let's move on. When you're confused.

Go. Tena. Tena.

Okay, let's do the easy part. At the end. Let's do the only part we understood.

Dag-Nin-Chen-Mo, those big guys, which is those who have seen emptiness directly, they get free. They get free. Because, because, okay, the wisdom...

Ngopo and ngopo meypay nyi. When you say something's real, and other things are unreal, those two concepts are mutually dependent. They rely on each other.

You have to understand what real means to understand unreal. You have to understand unreal to understand what's real, okay? Therefore, when you see that they are dependent origination, in the higher sense of the word, right?

Okay? Got it? You okay?

[Speaker 2]
Where's that? Here.

[Speaker 1]
Pensantipa. Mutually dependent. It just means dependent origination.

Without the origination. Okay. When you see that these two are dependent, okay, then, you have seen, directly, what it is to be empty.

Okay? When you see that unreality depends on reality, and reality depends on unreality, then you have seen the nature of things, which is that they are empty. You have seen it directly.

Okay? Yong Tzu Shepe. That's cool.

And then he mentions, mik mey yeshe. Mik mey yeshe. Wisdom, which is, yeah, which sees nothing at all.

Yeah, where did we hear that before? Eh, eh, eh. Alright, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Slow down. Analambana, right? Niralambana.

Niralambana, okay. What's it mean? What's this mikpa mean?

Well, we were talking about objects. It does mean objects, so stay there. You accidentally went to the right place and just stayed there.

Okay, so mikpa means, here it means object, and it means wisdom which has no object. Which means what? That's how the wife should see the second husband in the kitchen.

Okay? There is no husband there, who didn't come from me. Okay?

That's called mik mey. In Buddhism, that's called Niralambana, which means no object. So that love, which is advocated by Tsongkhapa, so it got into his mantra as the opening line, is love with nothing it sees.

This is wisdom with nothing it sees. Okay? Which doesn't see any self-existent thing, is the punchline, right?

Nyesiketen. Now, I take this ten to be object, and sometimes objects are called the support, the support, alambana, the support. Sometimes...

Yeah, meaning they hold up the perception. They hold up the subject. Sometimes the subject and object are called basis, and what relies on the basis.

Okay? In Buddhism. So ten is a highly technical term for...

...desha. Oh, object. Yul.

[Speaker 2]
Yul.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? I take it to be that here. Okay?

That's what emptiness wisdom is focused on, and therefore, those big guys can get freed if they see it. Okay? Got it?

Yeah. And then, he backs it up with a lungadrupte, which means... ...authority from scripture, and it's the same one. Okay, go ahead. Preaching to... ...to...

...ni la mi ten... ...tar par ngyur... ...she pey ton...

...ton to. ...ton to. By the way, that...

...the to is required after a d. Right. So it proves that...

[Speaker 2]
There is a secondary...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, maybe a couple hundred years ago there was a d after n. Okay? Anyway, ...ni la mi ten...

...tar par ngyur. If you... ...ni la mi ten...

...tar par ngyur. If you stop seeing the discrepancy, you will become free. ...tar par ngyur. What's this nyi mean here? It's the point. Connect it to the last Rinchen Tengwa quotation.

Almost. Nyi pa pa, and ma pa pa.

[Speaker 2]
Nyi pa pa. Yeah, okay.

[Speaker 1]
Don't say things exist, and don't say things don't exist. Okay? Don't go to either one.

Nyi la mi ten. And if you can hold to that line between them, tar par ngyur, you will be free. Which is, after all, the section that we were guaranteed back here.

Yeah? If you realize neither is there, you get free. That was the whole section's name.

Right? So now we go back to here. Nyi pa la.

Nyi pa la. Yeah, it's the second one. I guess I didn't go get it for you.

Yeah, I'm sorry. I'll have to go back and get it for you at some point. But it doesn't matter, because it has two divisions.

Yeah. Nyi pa la, tar nyi ki juk je, gak pa la, lung ki juk je, mi te pa tang, te tak la, nyang de, mi te pao. Okay, this is a little tricky.

Tar nyi ki juk je. Well, it's not a little tricky with Gyaltsabje. Tar nyi ki juk je means proofs for yuk pa and mey pa.

Wait, we're getting there. Proofs for yuk pa and mey pa. Somebody wants to prove that those are good approaches.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Somebody's trying to prove that yes, either things exist the way they are, or if they don't exist the way they are, then they don't exist. And somebody's going to try to prove those two, that they are correct. Then we gak pa them.

And we gak pa them, we disprove them, we battle against them with two different weapons. The first weapon is to show, careful, to show that their lung gi juk je is mi te. To show that those scriptural proofs are incorrect.

Yeah, they're going to pull out scriptures. These are Hinayana guys. To prove that we're wrong, and we're going to prove their scriptures are wrong.

Yeah. Okay. And then to prove that the idea that those could take you to nirvana are incorrect?

Their idea of nirvana are incorrect? De dak pa yang de? De dak means people who people who assert the two.

Yeah, could reach nirvana? Yeah. We're going to deny.

So say the whole sentence. We're going to deny the people who assert either that things exist the way they are, they seem the way they seem, or that they don't exist at all. Right.

And we're going to prove that those guys' scriptures are incorrect. yang de mi te. Oh, that they can't reach nirvana.

Yeah, they could never get to nirvana. They could never get to nirvana. Okay?

We're going to do those two proofs. We're going to prove that their statements from scripture about trying to prove the two extremes as correct or wrong. And then we're going to show why if you hold to the two extremes, you'll never get to nirvana.

Right. Okay? Cool.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, so aren't their scriptures our scriptures? So we can't say they're incorrect, but they're misunderstood or something?

[Speaker 1]
I would say as scriptural proofs, they're incorrect. That's a good point. As scriptural proofs, yeah, for Yupa and Meppa.

Okay? So what happens... By the way, I did get Nipa for you.

Oh, that's what that is. Yeah, and I got a long one for you.

[Speaker 2]
Uh-oh.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? This comes from above.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
The section we just came into, I did go get it for you. It's... It's the second one here.

Oh, no. Oh, cool. It's this one.

It's the second one here. Refuting arguments in favor of the two extreme views. We reached that part.

Cool. Which is a sub-topic, demonstrating that dependence is freedom from extreme position. If I can have the second verse.

Okay. Okay. Okay.

That's so funny. So I did go and get it for you. Cool.

It sounds like an oxymoron, that dependence is freedom. Yeah, it's kind of cool. Okay, please read.

Yeah. This is extremely deep. Okay?

This tiny sentence is extremely deep and difficult. Okay? Okay, Dumbledore, which means we're going to go to proving why their attempted proofs for the two extremes are incorrect.

Okay? Your proofs. Now, this is, in logic, it's called...

Unreliable source? No, it's a tricky thing. You gotta classify the logic differently if it's presented to people of two vastly different levels.

Okay? You gotta... You call the logic different things if it's presented to people of two vastly different levels.

This logic you're proposing, if the person has not seen emptiness, is A. But if the person has seen emptiness, it's B. Okay, got it?

Okay? So, your proofs that things do exist or don't exist, okay? Your proofs, if presented to a chiba...

Child.

[Speaker 2]
Teenager.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, we like to use teenager nowadays. No, we've been using two-year-old. Oh, two-year-old, I'm sorry.

Yeah, teenager is a different one. That's Kamalashila. In Kamalashila we had advanced chibas who heard the scriptures about emptiness but still haven't seen them.

Kamalashila was proposing a third category. He said, don't call it Aryas and non-Aryas. There's Aryas, there's non-Aryas, and there's better non-Aryas.

At least they heard about the ideas. We called them teenagers. Advanced two-year-olds.

Here's two-year-olds. Okay? Your logic, if presented to a person who has not seen emptiness directly, is mangepa.

And I was thinking, this gets into pretas. This gets into pretas. The principle of mangepa, of uncertain logic, indefinite logic, has to do with the subject of, for example, pretas.

Pretas cannot be confirmed by direct perception of a person who's not an advanced practitioner. Okay? So if you talk about pretas to a normal person, if they're totally honest, they'd have to say, I'm not sure.

I'm not sure if what you're saying is right or wrong. Okay? They have to say, I'm not sure.

It's called mangepa thought. It's a bad reason, because it doesn't nail it down. It has loopholes.

That's called mangepa thought. Uncertain reason. But if it's presented to an Arya, if you present the same proofs to an Arya, they are flat-out madhrupa.

They're just wrong. Okay. So I was thinking about if somebody said, oh, this guy's future Buddhahood doesn't exist, right?

Your future Buddhahood doesn't exist. Spoken to a non-Arya, it's called an uncertain. You can't be sure whether it's correct or not.

But spoken to an Arya, they can say dhammadrup. I saw my future Buddhahood with a pramana, with a correct perception. It's a wrong.

To say that to me is wrong. To say it to another person is questionable. Yeah.

We can say questionable or wrong. Okay? At best, your arguments are questionable.

At worst, they are flat-out wrong. You got it? Kind of cool.

Okay. Depending who you present them to. What arguments?

Proofs of yö and me. Okay, cool. Okay.

Oh, wow. He said, first of all, again. Yeah.

He tells that a lot. There are things that exist and don't exist. For example, I didn't say that, but sansara and nirvana are things that exist.

Yeah, you know, we gotta discuss this when we get to the translating. You know? But it's something like there is life and there is beyond life.

Okay? There's pain and there's beyond. It means that.

Okay? There's there's what we see and there's something better coming. It's something like that.

Okay? Ngo po and ngo me. Things you've realized and things that are to be realized.

It doesn't mean real and unreal here. It just means there's stuff going on and there's stuff not going on. Meaning, you can go to nirvana, you can go to Buddha paradise.

You haven't seen it yet. Okay? You gotta understand it that way.

The ngo me doesn't mean things that don't exist? No, it doesn't mean don't exist. Oh, I thought maybe he was going to go on a group and talk about non-existing things.

No, he's going to talk about nirvana. Okay, so are there... Okay, and these are parallel.

The ngo po is korwa. The ngo me is nirvana. Okay?

So, ngo me is like things we don't see directly. Well, let's not decide yet. Sometimes that's the best strategy.

Okay? By the way, this is all part of when you make these statements to people who haven't seen emptiness, they are questionable. By those people.

They can't be sure correct or not. These statements made to an Arya are flat-out lies. Okay, okay.

So, we say, look, things are... There's two things here. The real and the beyond the real.

See, I would say something like that. What's real? Right now, it's the pain and the samsara.

What's beyond the real? It's a nirvana which is waiting for you. Okay?

And then we say, khyava yukte. Well, it must be that way. Okay?

It must be that way. Okay? Oh, sorry.

Oh, go ahead. Yeah, hang on. I've got to join this up.

Okay, now we see, okay, that this is the attempted scriptural proof for yuppa and meppa by the other guy. Okay? And he says, look, there's only two choices.

Things are real, or things are unreal. Because, in this context, they are... Real means the pain we're in right now, and unreally good means nirvana.

Okay? Got it? And things are either one or the other.

There is no third possibility as you are proposing.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Well, third possibility in two senses. There's no third possibility that there's nothing. Either exist or not exist.

And there's no possibility that there's a... We're going to propose a thing which is not self-existent as a third possibility. Okay?

Anyway, he says, look, things divide into yuppa and meppa because they divide into lopo and lume because they divide into samsara and nirvana. And Buddha taught that. So now he's going to give quotations.

You know, he's going to prove that Buddha said, look, either it's samsara or it's nirvana. Could he be saying, I mean, functioning and unfunctioning again because... Because emptiness is...

Yangde's... Yeah, no. Rangshingin yangde, natural nirvana, is emptiness.

[Speaker 2]
Well...

[Speaker 1]
Both nirvanas are ngume. No. Yeah, cessation is always ngume.

In the sense of unchanging? Yeah. Yeah, well now you've just switched the meaning of unreal.

They're both true. So all unchanging things are unreal? Are ngume?

Yeah, they are. Space is unreal? Ngume.

I didn't say it was unreal. I'm saying, could he be taking... Could he be functioning?

It'd be an easy way out, but it's not. Okay. Yeah, it'd be a comfortable way out, but it's not.

Not even comfortable, but he's going sexier. He wants sexier. Okay.

Kyabayute. That's the case because samsara consists of pumbanga. Stanley's first chapter.

Stanley's first chapter. Yeah, the five heaps, which are nirvanambha. Taking on a birth.

Good. I translate it as taking on a birth. No, I do.

Oh. I'm kidding, I'm kidding. It just says closely taken.

Right. The Sanskrit and the Tibetan is just closely taken. But that's common.

And a few people have different opinions, but 95% they will say taken on... closely taken means taken on at birth. Yeah.

When you take birth. But there are other interpretations. Nirvanambha pumbanga ngupo.

Those real things, the things, things refers to the five heaps that you got that your mom gave you. Okay? And that's samsara.

when you gyun chepa. When you cut streams. Bem rik gyun chepa.

You cut the flow of body and particles and mind. Yeah, cut the flow of thoughts and... Mind and body.

Yeah. It's the lower school's definition of nirvana. Yeah, sakme.

Sakme nirvana. Okay? Nirvana with no remainder.

You know? Suddenly you pop out of existence. And that's the misconception of nirvana which has become common in the West.

You know? I don't want to achieve nirvana because I don't want to leave my family. You know?

What's real nirvana? Yeah, you just can't get angry. No one in your family can upset you.

That's nirvana. It's not that you pop out of existence and your wife is crying that you left. Okay?

That's a very lower school. But who is this book aimed at? Lower school guys.

This is Nagarjuna's whole book written to tell the Abhidharma school people, for example, Buddha did teach emptiness in your books. The 60 Verses of Nagarjuna. One of his great...

Five books? Seven large books.

[Speaker 2]
Six, I'm sorry.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. He wrote six famous poems. You know, long poems.

And the purpose, the specific purpose of this one that we chose to translate is to demonstrate to the lower schools that in the lower sutras Buddha still taught the higher emptiness. Which is very uncomfortable for them. They want to say, for example, here that nirvana is when you pop out of existence.

So for them, the me-pa in yo-pa and me-pa is nirvana. Yeah, don't go telling us there's no me-pa. Are you saying there's no nirvana?

Got it? There's no state of non-existence? So you're saying there's no nirvana?

Because nirvana is to not exist anymore, according to them, okay? The discontinuation of my flow, jin-chik, okay? Is what no...

Is what unreal means here. Okay? Meaning no longer existing.

And when you say nge-me here, you're referring back to the me-pa-pa before. Okay, got it? ngen-ne-de-pa-yin-pe Therefore, kon-de-me-pa-yang ma-drup-te ngen-ne-de-pa-yin-pe kon-de-me-pa-yang ma-drup-te And you cannot assert, moreover, that there's no samsara and there's no nirvana.

Because, if there's no samsara and there's no nirvana, okay? lang-dor cha-way chir-tun-pa mi-rik It would have been wrong for the Buddha to say one of these you have to give up and one of these you have to seek. Okay?

About nirvana and about samsara, okay? Yeah, torwa... lang-dor means give up one and follow the other.

Oh, I see, lang-dor. Yeah, lang means the nirvana side. Tor means the samsara side.

If there's no yupa and merpa, or if I believe in yupa and merpa, if it's true that if I believe in yupa and merpa, I cannot reach nirvana, then why did the Buddha divide everything into yupa and merpa? Totally. Okay, got it?

Mm-hmm. Cool? Yes, sir.

tun-pa mi-rik tun-pa mi-rik What, did he make a boo-boo when he taught that? Okay. Are you saying Buddha made a boo-boo?

Uh-huh. Okay. tun-pa mi-rik tun-pa mi-rik The Buddha said it, not me.

Channa, if you say that... Okay, now here's our answer. Here comes our answer.

We are out of time. Aw, shucks. Uh...

Here's our answer. I don't care if we're out of time. Yeah, uh...

Because he said it to the Aryas.

[Speaker 2]
Uh-huh.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? den-ta-ma-drup Okay? Uh...

Uh-huh. Because he taught about existence, he taught about samsara and nirvana to make people who are not Aryas into Aryas. Yeah.

Got it. Okay? Don't tell me he taught this to the Aryas.

Uh-huh. He didn't teach this to the Aryas. He taught this to people who weren't Aryas because he wanted to make them into Aryas.

Okay. But then he's going to say, don't tell me he taught it to people who weren't Aryas. Uh, yeah, that's true, too.

Stop, too. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
It's sexy.

[Speaker 1]
You're getting sexy, right? Okay. Okay.

Cool. Wait. Oh, that was a heavy day.

I think it's because John's in the room. It goes a little... It's a little more high-powered.

He might be forced to translate that. Okay. Okay.

Okay. Okay. Okay.

Okay. Okay. Okay.

Okay. Okay. Okay.

Okay. Cool. Thank you.

A nice day. Nice day, you guys. And amazing, amazing text.

Yeah. Hasso? Yeah.

I was wondering about this Arya in the lower school... Uh-huh. Good.

...thing. So... Yeah. ...because basically the schools get different between each other.

[Speaker 2]
Well, two main things, Hinayana and Mahayana, the motivation, but also the description of what emptiness is.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, exactly.

[Speaker 2]
So then, if an Arya, a student or a practitioner of the lower way gets to become an Arya, then they will perceive the only emptiness there is, which matches with the Mahayana, the Madhyamika philosophy. So it's not the case that then they will realize that if the perception, the philosophical perception of emptiness doesn't match with the school that they reach it, by implication, so they will get to practice the bodhicitta part of the teachings?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I'll say two things, and correct me if I'm wrong. We went through this. Anytime anyone sees emptiness directly, they are Prasangika.

So that's the first answer. So we can talk about lower arhats and lower Aryas, and somehow they are. Maybe they belong to a school which doesn't talk about compassion, or being a bodhisattva, you see?

But if they see emptiness, they see the same emptiness that the Prasangika asserts. Now, deeper point, before you guys run away, and everyone who's ever reached Buddhahood did it with Tantra. And there's that too, you know, you gotta think about that.

It's always going to finally ripen you as a person. Do we need scripture on that? I think it is in scripture.

No, I'm not saying it. I read it somewhere. Don't ask me where.

There are lower Aryas.

[Speaker 2]
It's more that they reach the level of Arya following a lower track, but once they become an Arya, they have an implication to become at least philosophically...

[Speaker 1]
Excellent. Lexo, lexo. You said it very well.

If Tantra scripture says that you have to use Tantra to become a Buddha, then can we accept it from the perspective of Sutra?