Классика Алмазного огранщика: Верхний Срединный путь — Великие книги мудрости, занятие 36

[Speaker 1]
Sokhi Kriyen, Kriyen Babi Sangye Shingdu Minthe Owar Di Dawa Kunnam Dakshin Mahajipar So Nidamgurana Mandala Kandeya Thayami Sangye Chedang Sokhi Choknam La Sangchu Bhardhu Dhaki Nidamgurana Mandala Kamdeyatayami Sangye Chedang Sokhi Choknam La kyatsu chi dakhi chen yin gyi peh sanam ki, dro la pen chir sang gyi drub par so. chedang sok gi chok nam la, jang chu par du dak ni kyatsu chi, dakhi chen yin gyi peh sanam ki, dro la pen chir sang gyi drub par so. chedang sok gi chok nam la, jang chu par du dak ni kyatsu chi, dakhi chen yin gyi peh sanam ki, dro la pen chir sang gyi drub par so.

Sog gi di smog gi di. All right then. So I'm rotating through editing your texts, okay?

Because in the time I have after you give them to me, it's impossible to edit all of them. So I just take the person who got the least editing last time. You see what I mean?

So I caught up Alison. I caught up Stanley. I caught up Ben.

And I caught up Nagarjuna. And I didn't catch up Kamasita. And I didn't catch up Illumination of the True Thought.

And I didn't catch up Yunsa, out of the books I'm doing. But I am trying to catch up Nick. So we would like to give Dr. Wu as much as we can. So I've been holding off on sending him stuff. And I've been holding off on printing it to impress the people downstairs. Because I want to finish Nick's text.

I have a few more pages to go. And it was extremely difficult. His and his were extremely difficult.

So... I even got to a part in Gyatso Jaya I had to... I really don't know.

I got to come back to this. So anyway... It never really happens to me.

Yeah, I have to do that. Okay. So anyway, I also went back and added all the Sanskrit as much as we have of the Abhidharma.

And I added all the Sanskrit as much as we have to Nick's text. It's about a third or half? I don't remember.

About a third. It's about a third. Yeah.

And those are parts of the 60 verses that were quoted elsewhere in Sanskrit. So 60 verses, I believe, is just missing. But it was quoted in ancient Sanskrit books.

So someone in Beijing went to and took out those pieces, which is very helpful. Mr. Ye. Huh?

Same book. Oh, Mr. Ye, number two. Is that person still around?

[Speaker 2]
I think so. Do you want to contact him?

[Speaker 1]
Wouldn't it be interesting to invite him one day?

[Speaker 2]
That would be cool.

[Speaker 1]
That would be really cool.

[Speaker 2]
Why don't you check it out?

[Speaker 1]
Okay. He found alternate Tibetan translations. Well, yeah, he must be working hard.

He must be a good man. So... Then Nick decided that we misnumbered it.

It's supposed to be 60 verses. Then Nick pointed out to me that everybody else numbers it. They don't number the praise of the Buddha.

And if you don't do that, you get 60 verses, which kind of makes sense, because it's called the 60 verses. And what's the last verse?

[Speaker 2]
Ge-wa-di.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, Ge-wa-di, Ge-wa-kun is the last verse of his book. And I was trying to sell it as an amazing 61st verse, but anyway, we decided to go back and... I decided he was correct, which happens once in a while.

Well, he looks pretty smart.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, really? What year? 1978.

[Speaker 1]
Wow, he's a kid. I like that 78 people are kids, yeah. He's invading India.

Yeah, we should invite him. So anyway, let's fly him here someday. It's been in India also.

Wow. And Japan. Oh, so anyway, we renumbered everything.

The whole thing took a lot of time. And then we put in the Sanskrit. And then I'm splitting up the Sanskrit in a unique way to make it easier for people to pick out words.

So as far as possible, I'm splitting it, okay? Like Tattva Darshana is traditionally put together, in compound. But it's more interesting for a reader if they can guess what's the word for dustness and what's the word for seeing, you know?

Okay? So anyway, I'm going to go quickly... Oh, what was the other comment I wanted to make?

[Speaker 2]
The progress report.

[Speaker 1]
Oh yeah, let's go to the progress report, and then I'll come back here. So his book is going to be two pieces, right? We have Gyaltsabje's commentary on the 60...

Oh no, sorry, not yours. His is two pieces.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Mine has notes. By Gyaltsabje? Yes.

On teaching the Je Tsongkapa game. Separately? Yeah.

And yours has notes, or not? I forget. Mine is the commentary, the auto-commentary.

Yours is the notes. The annotated comments on the auto-commentary. By whom?

Je Tsongkapa, Je Tsongkapa, and previously displayed. Oh, okay, so I was confusing you two guys.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, Gyaltsabje did sit in a teaching by Je Tsongkapa on the 60 verses, and he wrote separate notes to that. So we are attaching them to these translations, right? That's the plan.

So this translation, instead of being 33 folios, becomes 44 folios, because his notes are 11 folios. So we have 34 folios to go. If we keep at the same rate, it will take us to the end of 2022 to finish.

We could possibly... Four years, 1920, 21, 22. End of 22.

I did it on my fingers, so I'm sure. Because I was confused, you know? Anyway, if we speed up a little bit, we might be able to finish in 2021.

All right.

[Speaker 2]
We spent a better part of a term just trying to figure out what book we were using.

[Speaker 1]
That was the first term, yeah. We tried to do a different book at first. Did we?

I don't remember. Yeah, the first term, we tried to do a different Nagarjuna text. We tried to do something straight from Nagarjuna, and then we were lost, and then we decided to find a different text.

Oh, okay. I don't remember. Anyway, okay.

[Speaker 2]
I'm going to go back.

[Speaker 1]
So... I'm happy we did this one.

[Speaker 2]
It's hard, though.

[Speaker 1]
And I think it's going to be a big contribution. Your text is going to be an important contribution, because nobody else can translate it. It's just really hard.

You'd have to know logic extremely well to deal with guilt subjects. So anyway... Okay, so he said, those who have perceived thusness have no delusions about the world or what lies beyond.

Okay? Meaning nirvana. They have no delusions about the world, and they have no delusions about nirvana.

Okay? And then we go through this part. And they're talking about...

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
As you like. DE DAG PHA PA LA BRTEN PA MA YIN NA PHA PA'I BRTEN PA JI LTAR GYUR ZHIG NA Okay, let's go back and do the whole thing. But I didn't want to read this, because it's already done.

[Speaker 2]
This is not how you speed up to eleven folios.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, they have no misperceptions about what is samsara and what is nirvana. Okay? Because they're Aryas.

PHA PA LA BRTEN PA MA YIN NA Now, if the Arya Truth were not called Arya Truth because they were taught the Aryas, then why were they called Arya Truth, right?

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, no problem. We call it Arya Truth because those who see them are Aryas. Or because when you see it, you are an Arya.

Okay. Or, because they're taught by Aryas. Okay?

We don't call them Arya Truth because they were taught to Aryas. Either they're Arya Truth because they were taught by Aryas. Or, yeah, or...

Yeah, they make you an Arya. Okay? And then, if it weren't that way, PHA PA KHO NA LA BRDUB NA If they only make sense to an Arya, then it'd be incorrect to talk about the eight Arya expressions.

Because in the normal everyday world we refer to things as Arya expressions when they are accurate. Okay? And then that gets off on some other thing that we taught.

We talked about it. And it's basically... Is it where you see something and you said, I saw it, and I thought something, and I thought I saw it?

Yeah, and actually those have nothing to do with Aryas as Aryas. They're just saying they're correct. It's just Arya in the sense of accurate.

Okay? Actually, in Section 204, this is the third line. 204.

Oh, there's a P in there. Yeah, I don't know where that came from. Let's just sneak it out.

It maybe just went in by accident. Yeah, that wasn't there during my training.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, we're ready to start on Term Starter. Go ahead. Okay.

Yeah, so... saṅg detak... saṅg detak...

Okay. duṅga-yaṅg mitarṣo jitārpārpa... parpa-teṅgvata...

detābhu detārne... detārne ki means they are really that way. Okay, that's an idiom.

They are that way. Not that they reside that way, or something like that. Okay?

They are that way. As an Arya teaches the facts of suffering and impermanence. Okay?

So, these are referring to the four misc... They are called cinji-lokṣi. The four total asshole...

What do you call it? Ass-backwards, sorry. And it's a perfect translation, because it means 180 degrees wrong.

It doesn't mean 10% wrong, 20% wrong. It's the complete opposite, okay? For example, when you say the bathroom is really clean today.

According to Buddhism, it's 180 degrees opposite. It was unclean when the building was built, because it's part of saṅsāra. To call it clean bathroom, if you speak strictly Buddhistically, there is no such thing.

It's 180 degrees wrong. It is the most unclean thing in the universe. When it was built, before someone pooped in it.

You see what I mean? It's saṅsāra. Don't call saṅsāra clean, okay?

Got it? So, there's four of them. One is, there is some happiness in the world, okay?

One is, some things are clean, you know? Some things have a self, and things do last for a while, okay? And those are called cinji-lokṣi.

They're just wrong, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
And he just names a couple here? Yeah. Tsang de sok?

What he says, tsang de sok? Ah, it's the phrase you're going to say. Tsang, tak, dak.

Changing. Yeah. Tak, tsang, de.

Tak, tsang, de. And dak. Tak, tsang, de, and dak.

And I forget the order, but that's the cinji-lokṣi. Famous. They're like famous.

[Speaker 2]
I know. Yeah, right.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Nirvana is peace.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, yeah, you could say that.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Anyway, as far as dunyā, right? Even if you're talking about the āyatrūtta of suffering, okay? Then, if you say, things are impermanent, things don't last forever, okay?

Then you can say, that when an ārya teaches it that way, it is that way, okay? But, the concept, as a concept, things being clean, tsang means specifically clean like laundry, or happiness, they don't even exist, deceptively, okay? There is none.

You see, it's an exaggeration for effect, the hyperbole, right? So, you can say, if an ārya says everything is pain, you can say that, that's the way it is. But if the ārya uses the word clean, it's not even deceptively true.

It doesn't even have deceptive existence, because there is no such thing as clean, okay? So, he's playing with deceptive in the sense of, is the way it looks, and isn't the way it looks. And he's saying, the concept clean is out of the both categories, you know?

It's not even deceptively there. It was never there. It could not be there.

There's no such thing. You see what I mean? So, don't talk to me about kuṭṭhaka-denpa or denpa-denpa about clean, because it don't exist in the first place, okay?

This is guilt subject, okay? It's difficult. I'm trying to understand how this relates to what we were just talking about.

He's talking about āryas, and truth, and mistruth, and... Yeah. You know, it's just, you know...

If they use the word clean... We're trying to decide... Yeah, everyday people use the word papa to say that things exist in truth, okay?

As they seem to be, okay? And then... They just busted out the word clean out of nowhere.

Yeah, well, he's referring to those four, famous four. And he says, look, there's certain things that I even object if you say they exist deceptively.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
That's all. Although traditionally we would accept it.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
The concept of clean exists, but it's not what it seems to be. That's all. Okay?

So, to an ārya, does cleanliness exist? Cleanliness exists, but not... Well...

Well, he's saying... He's exaggerating. Yeah, right.

Okay, it doesn't even exist deceptively speaking. Okay? Yeah.

Sit with it. Okay, go ahead. Go on.

Okay, good. The quotation is spread over two parts, okay? So, that's why the...

my notes don't come right away. Okay? So, Deityayogjalpa, the commentary, which happens to be Master Chandrakirti's, which I believe is the only commentary in the tenure to this book.

Okay? It's by a cool guy, Chandrakirti. Okay?

So, he chose to write a commentary on this text. Yeah. And that, you know, in your old age, you can translate that.

That's short, I think. Anyway, Deityayogjalpa, in the commentary, it says, de la cinji-lokni, and that's again, I said cinji-lokshi, you see? They're known as the cinji-lokshi.

The four are asked backwards. It means completely backwards, completely wrong, okay? The diametric opposite.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. deva-la-sopa-ni-du-dzemba, kaya-buddha. If you take things as being pleasure, et cetera, what's the other ones?

Pleasure, lasting, purity, clean, and having a nature. Okay? So, the et cetera is the other three.

Okay? Which is, no, it's the same. Clean, lasting, and has its own nature.

And he only mentioned here pleasure. Then he said la-sopa. Okay, he assumes you know the other cinji-loks.

Ni-du-dzemba, if you take it to be that, that exact thing, happiness itself, no, the cinji-lok consists of... Anyway, but when you take things to be that way, kaya-buddheni, kun-zoptu-yang, Even deceptively? Yeah, even in a deceptive sense, they don't exist that way.

Okay? So normally, we say everything exists deceptively. The cup exists deceptively.

Why? Why?

[Speaker 2]
Because you're projecting it from your seeds.

[Speaker 1]
Why deception? Because you don't think you're projecting it. Yeah, what's a deception is, it looks like it's coming from its own side, but it's really not coming from...

There's a discrepancy, okay? Deception going on. It's tricking me.

Okay? So he says, in the case of pleasure, that doesn't even exist in a... You might want to say, what's the other word for...

In a conventional way. It don't even exist in a conventional way, you see? And don't forget he's coming off of these subjects of an argument that both sides can see in the same way.

You see? Don't forget he's coming off of that. You know?

Is there any subject that... You know? Can there be a common object of two human beings who have different seeds, you know?

Do we ever see the same cup? You know? It's a whole question.

It's been going this way. Okay? So, that's how he got off on the Madhyamika, and we just came back.

Lhasa-paññidhi-dzembukha-yamade. Not even deceptively, does it exist, in and of itself. Dagnidhe.

Okay? It isn't really that way. It doesn't sit that way, meaning, in reality.

That's that idiom. Nambamidnepa. Yeah, in reality.

It's almost like Bhava, you see? He's writing in Sanskrit, right? Yeah.

So, it's... Oh, yeah, right. Nopadhenambamidnepa.

That thing... Here it's just general thing. There ain't no thing that really is there, in that sense.

Even deceptively. Because normally we would say it is there deceptively. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
Okay.

[Speaker 2]
But not that it's happy. Not that it's...

[Speaker 1]
Uh-huh.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Go ahead. Chinchipa. Chinchimalokpani.

Dunyawalasokpa. Nidunzinpate. Ngopodhekundzogpu.

Dagnidheryirpa. Nikichiro shesunso. Yeah.

But it's... When you flip the chinchilongs, those exist.

[Speaker 2]
Like suffering and stuff. Right.

[Speaker 1]
Are there clean things in the world?

[Speaker 2]
Nope.

[Speaker 1]
No, in normal terms. Sure. Normal people.

Nagarjuna said, I follow farmers. Whatever farmers say, I agree. Very famous.

You're equivocating with the meaning of clean. Uh-huh. Yeah.

No, but in general, can we say clean?

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I mean, going to the... You want me to make the bathroom not clean? And you go in there, Hey, I'm getting somewhere.

Uh... Is there clean in the world? Yes.

Does it exist self-existently? Did I pee-pee in the... Did Phil pee-pee all...

or someone... pee-pee all over the floor?

[Speaker 2]
Uh... Again this happens? Who's responsible for it?

[Speaker 1]
I think Phil. Benjamin Franklin said, Those present are never without excuse. Those absent are never without fault.

[Speaker 2]
But anyway, uh...

[Speaker 1]
Is there a clean? In the world, generally. Yeah.

Does it come from its own side? No. So we...

In normal Madhyamika language we say, it does exist, but deceptively, because it looks like it's coming from its own side, but it's not coming from its own side.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
So it does have a deceptive existence, but it doesn't have a true existence. Okay. Now, if I say, some relationships in my life will last for a while.

Does it exist?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, not even deceptively. And he's playing with two different meanings of deceptively. He's equivocating.

He's two different meanings of deceptive. It does exist, deceptively. Sure.

Now... Now if I say, everything in my life sucks. Okay?

Does that exist? Deceptively.

[Speaker 2]
Deceptively.

[Speaker 1]
It does, yeah. Both deceptively.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. You see?

[Speaker 1]
You see what I mean? That's not wrong on any level. Right.

Okay? Got it? That's all.

That's all. Out of the cinti-loks. That's what he's saying.

Out of the four cinti-loks. Okay? du-ngelwa-la-sok, nyi-du dzinpa, gunso-du-dre, yupa.

It's there.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
But... pleasure, mi-ne, is not there. Yeah.

In the second deceptive, even in the... in no way, is pleasure there. Okay?

Okay? All pleasure is really pain. It's deceptive on a different...

in a different way. We're not talking about its self-existence or not self-existence. You see?

It's not what it appears to be. But we're not talking ultimate, or non-ultimate, or blah blah. Okay?

That's all. Why is he talking about this? Yeah, it's a basic form of deception.

Why are we talking about that? We're trying to get to, what is arya? You know?

What is it to perceive things correctly? And then the guy's like, do they teach the chin-chin locks? Yeah.

Do they say pleasure? Yeah. Why do they use words that don't exist?

Okay? Because they're teaching. They're using the word pleasure, which doesn't have a referent.

It's like saying, book-juk. You know? There's no thing that the word refers to.

It's like, what do you mean arya? What do you mean, saw everything correctly? Then you talk about pleasure.

When they say, all pleasure is pain. That's really mean to pick on him, for that.

[Speaker 2]
You see?

[Speaker 1]
He's the one who's trying to say there's no pleasure. Right. But when he uses the word pleasure, the other guy jumps on him.

Right. And they're using the word kun-sub here, that doesn't... Yeah, yeah, in two different ways.

Or just in one way, which doesn't relate to deceptive reality, right? Exactly, exactly. There's nothing in the word kun-sub in a way that relates to deceptive reality at all.

He's calling the opposite of the chin-chin lock, deceptive. At which point does he use it? To appear to be pleasant, to appear to be clean, to appear to last for a while, and to appear to have any nature on its own side.

Well, the fourth one is kind of...

[Speaker 2]
He says suffering does exist, kun-sub.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, that's true. Yeah, at that point, I guess. But no, is he talking about deceptive reality, or is he talking deceptively in the sense that...

No, he's talking about...

[Speaker 2]
That clean things...

[Speaker 1]
When you get to the fourth one, it's a little tricky. But the first three are deceptive on two levels.

[Speaker 2]
Uh-huh.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, got it? Anyway, then I cut it out for you, and I put in a different font so you easily recognize it.

[Speaker 2]
Pop that on the music, right? Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, so go. This is not easy, as you may have noticed. Yes.

chung-or dak-kyang kun-sub tu yipa-thera chung-or yipa-chir tak-kyak ke-lang dun-a lung-di sel-lo Okay. di-ni khanda chung-or yipa-kun-sub tu yipa-den-do tu chir-shing di-ni... chung-or means to the...

to a mistaken state of mind.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, yeah, like the opposite of rik-ngor?

[Speaker 1]
In a way.

[Speaker 2]
To the face of illusion.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, this is anything which is... anything... By the way, I mean, it comes in somebody else's text nowadays.

Whose text is that?

[Speaker 2]
Chul-or? I had a Chul yesterday.

[Speaker 1]
Chul-or... It's going to come in somebody's text. Oh, anyway, it basically came with the Chochen argument.

Oh, like whether two different mind streams can hold the same object? Yeah, because the Madhyamika guy would claim... Oh, yeah, it was the Madhyamika guy.

se-ma yena tuwa mayimbe ma-kyap Oh, I remember. This was in the appendix. Say it.

se-ma yena If something is a valid, correct... is an accurate perception tuwa mayimbe ma-kyap Then it doesn't mean that a mistaken perception... It doesn't mean it can't be mistaken.

It doesn't mean that it can't be mistaken. That's higher middle way. I'll say it again.

Yeah, right, right, right. se-ma yena tuwa mayimbe ma-kyap rang-ngula tuwa mayimbe ma-kyap Okay, something can be an accurate perception and be mistaken towards its object. Highest middle way.

Why? Because you're always mistaken towards the object. On one level.

Did Phil pee on the floor? No, it was Geshe-la. I'm just trying to...

Look, I'm taking the heat.

[Speaker 2]
No, it was Geshe-la.

[Speaker 1]
No, it was Geshe-la, okay? So, if I say... if I confess and I say it was me, and you hear it, are you having a correct perception?

No. Were you mistaken before when I said it was Phil? Sure.

Were you mistaken?

[Speaker 2]
No, I didn't believe it.

[Speaker 1]
No, if I really did it, were you mistaken if you believed it?

[Speaker 2]
Yes, yes. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Now if I say, no, it wasn't him really, it was me, then, and you perceive that statement, are you now unmistaken?

[Speaker 2]
We're still confused. Yeah, we're probably in doubt.

[Speaker 1]
No, you're still mistaken according to higher middle way. You're still mistaken because you think my pee is coming from me.

[Speaker 2]
No, I'm not kidding.

[Speaker 1]
No, I'm not kidding. Got it? So, on one level, you're still mistaken after you corrected your mistake.

Okay, got it?

[Speaker 2]
Yes. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
So, uh...

[Speaker 2]
There's still Gienic History left.

[Speaker 1]
Gienic conduct, Trung Ngo-Yi-Opa.

[Speaker 2]
Put that in your quiz next time. That's so crazy. Geshe-la trusted what he said.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, did, did, did, did, Kangta Trung Ngo-Yi-Opa? So, I ask you, if something exists to a mistaken state of mind, does it exist or not? Geshe-la peeing in the room.

In the bathroom.

[Speaker 2]
It existed.

[Speaker 1]
It just didn't exist the way you thought it did. It was there, but it was coming from you. Now how you did that is amazing.

Amazing. Okay, so, uh... So, is, is, is it enough, can we say something is deceptive when it's appearing to a mistaken state of mind?

Is that the meaning of deceptive?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
Let's say your first perception, that it was Phil. Was that, was that peepee appearing to a mistaken state of mind?

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Is that what we mean by deceptive reality? No.

That's all. Go there. Okay.

Discrepancy is a mistake. There's bigger discrepancies than Phil and Mike. There's bigger discrepancies going on.

So, kun tsob tu yul pey dundok tu che. If we say that's not what it means to be deceptive, okay? To exist, to exist to a mistaken state of consciousness is not what it means to be deceptive.

Dundok. Okay. Or we can say not so much.

Dok means not, not.

[Speaker 2]
Deny. Dok means to deny. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
We just had it somebody, just had it. Who had it? Today, I think.

[Speaker 2]
We just had dok. Yeah, I was going to say yesterday, too.

[Speaker 1]
I think it was your book.

[Speaker 2]
Dok? No, it was today, right? Sugok.

[Speaker 1]
No. No. I remember dok.

Somebody had some doks. Maybe it was a look. Anyway, it means to deny.

Yeah, yeah, I got it. Okay. Dundok.

Tu che shing. Dar she juk gi ke ma che par. Dar she is a word?

Dar she juk means, dar she means literal. Okay? So, it's talking about the application of the word deceptive.

Okay? Dar she juk. Does it apply literally?

Are you deceived when you think pleasure is pleasure? Are you deceived? Does the word deceptive apply correctly when you think something is pleasure and it's really pain?

Can we call it deception? Discussing that. But is it deception that we're really mean?

[Speaker 2]
No. Yeah, no.

[Speaker 1]
That's all. So, dar she juk means, does it apply literally? Yeah, that is deception.

But it ain't the deception we're talking about. Juk gi ke ma che par. You have failed to make that distinction between the two deceptives.

The guy is trying to say, do Aryas ever do deceptive things? Do they ever, you know, say deceptive things? And he says, they do.

Why? They use the word pleasure. Yeah, so they're in the deception.

We say, come on, that's not what deception means. That is a meaning of deception. It seems clean, it's not clean.

But that's not what we mean by deception. We mean, your state of mind is mistaken towards the nature of the object. Okay?

I mean the deep nature of the object, how's that? Okay? Good.

Okay? Ma che par. Kun dzob tu yu na.

And you are thinking that if a thing exists deceptively, it's a contradiction to believe, gyelwa du, that it yu. So it exists. Yeah.

We Madhyamika people say something can exist deceptively, but it still exists. Okay? You guys think if it's deceptive, it can't exist at all.

We don't say that. You know. Okay?

And that idea, that if it existed in a deceptive way, it would have to be non-existent, is a ngen tok. It's a sucky idea. Okay?

It's a very harsh word in philosophy. Ngen tok means crappy idea. Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
And if that's true, then you must think that cleanliness, happiness, unchangingness, and a self exists deceptively.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, this is... Now, I don't know. This is going to get tough.

Well, already got tough. Ngen tok kyang selwa. We are dispelling this notion, this lousy idea, that if something exists deceptively, it can't exist at all.

Yeah. We seek to dispel this idea. Okay?

De tanna. Okay? Yeah.

And as such, as such, de tanna, as such, here's the four. Chenjilogs. Sang de tak tak.

And that's the correct order. The... Okay.

Sang de tak tak. Kyang. Kunso tu yonpa thao.

Kunso tu yonpa thao.

[Speaker 2]
They do exist deceptively. Which is not what I was hoping he would say.

[Speaker 1]
It's confusing. They do exist deceptively. Tru ngor yonpay che.

Tru ngor the state of mind. I wish he would have said, tru pay tse ma. Ta kyab ke lang.

Lung di sel lo. Which accepts permanence. Okay.

If you say, let's go to the last part, which is easier. And maybe that will help us with the earlier part. Is this a different spelling of sel?

It is. It normally would have been sel. No.

G-S-A-L is an adjective. Clear, light. Osel, for example.

Basel means to clear away.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
And the S-E-L is even clearer as a verb, as a transitive verb, to clear it away. It doesn't mean to shed light on. Okay.

But here it means to eliminate. Okay. To selwa.

Like ne selwa, to eliminate disease in the body. Okay. So anyway, if you say yes, this quotation contradicts you.

Lung di. What is this quotation?

[Speaker 2]
Dr. Chandrakirti.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. And what did Chandrakirti say? He's pointing out there's two kinds of kunzo.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Okay. Tungwar yupey chir dak kyap ke lang.

If you agree to that, you contradict...

[Speaker 2]
If you agree that these accidents are separate.

[Speaker 1]
That's what I can't figure out.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. That's what I wanted to make sure. He says it.

[Speaker 1]
It's kind of tough. Would we say cleanliness, happiness, lasting for a while, and having its own nature, do they exist or not? No.

Do they exist even deceptively? No.

[Speaker 2]
But he's saying they do. No, he's saying if you say that this scripture contradicts you.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, okay.

[Speaker 2]
But what is the kyang doing it though? Isn't it would be even though?

[Speaker 1]
Say again? Kyang?

[Speaker 2]
The kyang.

[Speaker 1]
Among all the things in the universe, these four also exist. Kunzo.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Are you telling me that? Why? They also exist to a mistaken state of mind.

Just because we said some things can exist to a mistaken state of mind and still exist, doesn't mean that everything that appears to a mistaken state of mind exists. Don't come giving me a... Don't come giving me a dak dupe.

[Speaker 2]
Okay? That's cool. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

That's cool.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. That's not what we said, okay? We didn't say because it exists to a mistaken state of mind, it exists.

[Speaker 2]
That's pretty strong.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. We said even though it appears to a correct perception, which is ultimately speaking mistaken, it can still exist in a deceptive way. Okay?

Got it?

[Speaker 2]
Yes. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
But it's extremely tricky. I mean, he's incredible. Yeah.

I mean, that's going to be very difficult to translate correctly. Good luck. Okay.

And, and, you know, sometimes you just say, I need to sit with this, you know. It has to cook in my brain un... thought about.

No, and you'll come back to it and you'll say, oh, okay. Upon first seeing, you cannot understand Gyaltsabje. Don't even...

and don't get stressed about it. Say, okay, I gotta... a virus in my head.

Let it grow while I'm taking care of my dog and building my fence and building my yoga studio. You know, just say, I'll let it cook for a while. And the second time you come back to it, you're just like, oh yeah, that's what it means.

Okay. But sometimes on people like this, don't get frustrated if you don't understand the first time. And don't insist that you have to know it the first time.

You just waste your time. The frustration will make it even more unclear. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Actually, I've read that route too already.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, here we go.

[Speaker 2]
Nibbāni. The parting bowl here. Nibbāna pakpe ma sikpaṭṭhāṁ te tepa niśo.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I think it's worth going back to where we are, just to check in where are we. Okay. The whole thing, okay, this is the general category, general category.

The whole thing? We are recuting proofs in favor of the two extreme truths. First, we will show to the Hinayana guys, when they try to say things really exist, we'll say, your own scriptures deny that.

Okay? And then we say, if you hold those viewpoints, you will never get to nirvana. Okay, not possible.

Okay? So we are inside of the second one. If you hold those viewpoints, you will never get to nirvana.

That had two parts. There are some things that, if an Arya doesn't see it, it must be wrong. That's the point.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. And...

[Speaker 2]
For how that is correct.

[Speaker 1]
Why is it that if an Arya doesn't see it, it must be wrong?

[Speaker 2]
Uh-huh.

[Speaker 1]
Okay?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, that's where we are now. Why is it that if an Arya doesn't see it, it must be wrong?

[Speaker 2]
Uh-huh.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? Uh, now... And we divided it into this.

jiva-la-ma-ngepa. If you use this argument... Presented to a jiva.

To people who haven't seen emptiness, it's not a good reason because the... the reason doesn't always prove the quality you think it does. And...

we are going to deny that you would ever teach it. You would ever try to present it to an Arya. Okay?

Oh, okay. So, what I threw at you is that it's wrong.

[Speaker 2]
I was saying it's a presentation without realizing that the reasons are wrong.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, well, right now, we're kind of morphed to... things are not pakpa-dempa because they were taught to pakpas. That's what it really means.

Okay? So I mistranslated it too.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
What it now means is things aren't Arya truths because they were taught to Aryas. Right. There's two other reasons why they're Arya truths.

Why? They make you into an Arya. They either make you into an Arya or...

[Speaker 2]
Because Aryas see them directly.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And we like the second one. Teach them.

Yeah, teach them. Have seen them and teach them how to... directly.

Okay, we tend towards the second one. And when I teach what's Arya truth mean, I say because an Arya saw it. Right.

Okay. And that's the traditional explanation. Cool.

It's not that Buddha decided to just teach it to Aryas. Right. That's not what made it the four truths.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Got it? Wouldn't you have to say only Arya to teach it properly?

Yeah, that's true too. Yeah. Okay.

Let's go. By the way, I always put this where there's no Sanskrit, just so I remember to not go looking for it. I will.

And we had a... we had a... a mislead.

We got excited because we thought we found the Sanskrit. And someone has published the whole thing with parts that they reconstructed, which is illegal in this school. Okay?

I don't care if you think that's what the Sanskrit was. And I don't care how good your Sanskrit is. It's not useful.

Just leave the Tibetan, because you're translating the Tibetan into another language. Why waste our time, you know? Don't tell me that's what the Sanskrit was.

You don't know. You see what I mean? And I'm not going to put it in my book, you know, okay?

Because what happened was some guy... What was his name?

[Speaker 2]
This is called Invincible Phil.

[Speaker 1]
No, this was a hundred years ago. Some guy reconstructed the whole Abhidharmakosha. And then Tucci, who was the student of my teacher's best friend, an Italian, he got on a donkey and rode to the Patala Palace and found it.

The original Sanskrit? Yeah, so the guy wasted his whole life. Wow.

He just sent it to him. He said, Here. He had the next morning, it became, no one bought the book anymore.

Okay, so don't waste your time. You know, I don't care if that's what you think it is.

[Speaker 2]
Anyway, here we go. Please read.

[Speaker 1]
Translate just so we can have an exciting start to the next class. Is that... How much time we got?

[Speaker 2]
One minute.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, we can do it. This life, yamende, nirvana, sipita... Oh, samsara and nirvana, is probably what he's saying.

Yeah, samsara and nirvana. Both of them, yo mayin. Yeah, they don't exist.

Yeah, by the way, in colloquial, we say, yo mayin, for no reason at all. We don't say, you mayin. We say, hey, yo mayin.

It ain't, it ain't, don't exist. Neither the suffering life, nor certain, no... Yeah, there is no samsara, and there is no nirvana.

Very famous quotation. Look, there's no samsara, and there's no nirvana. Oh, I have a question.

Let's go one more sentence.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, man.

[Speaker 1]
Just for fun, okay? And I'm just going to translate, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Ready? Here we go.

[Speaker 1]
korwa da nyangan ne depar rang gi tsenay kyi dub na, if samsara and nirvana existed in and of themselves, okay, then, parpe nyam shak kyi sikpar rik na, it would be right, it would be proper, for them to be seen by an Arya who's seeing emptiness directly, because they would be ultimate reality.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? If they exist in and of themselves, then they are ultimate reality. And they should have been seen by an Arya while he's in the direct perception of emptiness.

Okay? Got it? Can you give the opposite argument too?

Ah, no, let's, let's go to the key card.

[Speaker 2]
Yes. Sikpar rik na, okay?

[Speaker 1]
Okay, even though that's correct, sipa da nyangan ne depar nyupa di, rang shik gi yupa mayinpichir, but because they don't exist in and of themselves, suk nyun shin, they are like a reflection in a mirror. They are not what they look like when the baby tries to touch the person in the mirror, okay, and takes it to be a real person. rang shik gi yupa mayinpichir, sipa de ni kona sipa mayinpichir, To see that these two have no nature is not to see that they exist by definition.

Otherwise, people with cataracts, okay, would also be seeing emptiness. Let's go back to that afterwards. Okay?

It must be. I don't know. Like diamond-cutter cataracts?

I don't know.

[Speaker 2]
So for some reason Geshe-la, your version of this file is Spanish, because it's your language. Perfecto.

[Speaker 1]
I noticed that. Sometimes it was making accents on stuff.

[Speaker 2]
How do I change that? Select all. Wait, do...

Tools. One, eighteen.

[Speaker 1]
Wait, let's do it again. Select all. Command A.

Command A. Okay, then? Tools.

Got it.

[Speaker 2]
Language.

[Speaker 1]
Language. Click.

[Speaker 2]
Click.

[Speaker 1]
Mine's Chinese. Mine's English.

[Speaker 2]
And now clear the box at the bottom that says to tick language automatically.

[Speaker 1]
Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Now say okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Yay. Now we did it?

Okay, good. Yeah, it was making weird tildes and stuff. Maybe because he speaks Spanish.

Maybe. But somehow on my computer it's not... I don't know.

No, it could be something I did. But it didn't happen...

[Speaker 2]
So we've got to build a wall at the border.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, 6.5 billion, right?

[Speaker 2]
6.5, right? I thought it was 5 billion.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Okay. Okay.

Okay. Okay. Okay.

Okay. Okay. Okay.

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you, Geshe-la. I'm not satisfied with it, and I think we should just review it next time.

[Speaker 2]
Cool.

[Speaker 1]
Just go through it one more time quickly.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Because I'm not satisfied with it. Can I ask you a quick question? Yeah.

I noticed that over the first couple of years I think you translated or left my translations a few times a day as Nirvana. But I know the word in general, trying to avoid any transcript, and I've been translating it as like the state beyond grief or... No, Nirvana is better.

It's an English word, no. Okay. Cool.

Yeah. But samsara we will not use. No, it's not an English word.

Do the waiter test. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'll ask all my waiters and waitresses.

I would just say suffering life.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Bye. Bye. Bye.

Bye.

[Speaker 2]
Bye. Bye. Bye.

Bye. Bye.