Классика Алмазного огранщика: Верхний Срединный путь — Великие книги мудрости, занятие 37

[Speaker 1]
Describe the difference that Joseph Jay is discussing between the truth of suffering and being clean. Anybody remember? Anybody is welcome to answer, anybody at all.

I didn't have a lot of material last time, so I'm going to start with this one.

[Speaker 2]
He's got it. Say it again. It's impossible to be clean.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
There is no such thing.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, there is no such thing. What about the truth of suffering? Oh, it's true.

It deceives you but it's not deceptive. It exists deceptively. Let's see what I put.

I don't know. How do I do this?

[Speaker 2]
Ah, the truth of suffering exists deceptively and being clean does not exist even deceptively.

[Speaker 1]
Correct.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Exactly. The truth of suffering doesn't exist ultimately but does exist deceptively, the way it's described in the text. Something that is clean doesn't even exist deceptively, it doesn't exist at all.

I put the qualifier because like being clean also in some way does exist deceptively but not the way that he's talking about it. There's something up here to a mistaken state of mind, can we say that it exists? No.

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
Being clean is. I'm hearing yes and no. Definitely one or the other.

No, no, no. Being clean appears to a mistaken state of mind but it doesn't exist. But if something, anyway I don't want to give you too much time.

Ben? I think I know what you're going to say and I think I'm going to take issue with it. If the debater and if the proponent and the opponent are both looking at the same object And one of them understands its nature, and one of them misunderstands its nature.

Why are they looking at the same object? He's tying his whole text together. Let's see.

Then you can never have a debate. Then you cannot teach someone about it. Oh, Michael.

That's the argument that we just had the appendix on. Yeah, that's a huge section. The monster appendix, which is longer than the book.

Also quite difficult. Let's see what I put. Depends what hat we're wearing, according to Prasangika, because this is what Geshe-la was just saying.

With different schools debating against each other, they can't because they're not seeing the same object. According to Prasangika, a mistaken state of mind can, moreover, has no problem with saying that deceptive things do exist. Doesn't what?

Some lower schools say that they don't. Yeah, that's okay.

[Speaker 2]
Can you have a mistaken state of mind towards rabbits, antlers?

[Speaker 1]
Well, that's not even what we're talking about here. Well, well, man. But it's not saying that if anything appears to be a mistake.

Oh, here, look at this.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, just hide that part.

[Speaker 1]
If something does exist to a mistaken state of mind, must we say that it exists deceptively?

[Speaker 2]
Depends on whether the person is seeing its nature as being incongruous or not. Not necessarily.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, not necessarily. Okay. Whether it exists to a mistaken state of mind doesn't imply at all that it has to exist.

I don't know. I was really tired.

[Speaker 2]
Sorry about my English.

[Speaker 1]
It doesn't imply that a mistaken state of mind can perceive something that doesn't exist. That's okay.

[Speaker 2]
I feel better about this one than the last one.

[Speaker 1]
That's okay. You're okay.

[Speaker 2]
I'll be a jerk later.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, okay.

[Speaker 2]
I promise.

[Speaker 1]
I'm too tired. We'll get into it tomorrow. Can anybody read that?

Oh, yeah. Should I make it bigger?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, that's a nice word. You get good words. That's a good one.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, but what does it mean? It's pretty. It means it exists to a deceived state.

A mistaken state of mind. Yes, sir. Very good.

Something appearing to a mistaken state of mind. Joshi. Joshi.

Joshi. The thing we're referring to? No.

The thing we just explained or something like that? No, but I can see why you would think that. Oh, okay.

I thought it was that. What? Come on.

Very common. Literal explanation. Is that what you said?

If you say, like, skanda means things pile together, that's a joshi. Explain the word. Explain the word.

Okay. I think you guys have got to know this one, right? Are you sure?

Read it again. Read it again. Malok.

Yeah, not 180 degrees, right? Unmistaken. Okay, good.

Unmistaken. Yeah. Very good.

Thanks, sir.

[Speaker 2]
Yay.

[Speaker 1]
Yay. Okay, here we go.

[Speaker 2]
He took the plane yesterday.

[Speaker 1]
I had trouble with Nick's text. I was confused. I didn't know where we were.

I couldn't see the flow, because he's had two huge appendices. He went off the subject for a long time. I think he might have been off more than he thought.

First, he went off on hasang. He tried to prove, well, he did prove, that the mind still exists when you're in the direct perception of emptiness. It's because people had been saying in his time, that if you were looking at emptiness directly, your mind didn't exist at that time.

Yul chen me. The subject state of mind doesn't exist. That was an idea at that time.

So he had a couple of pages argument about that. Then he went off on a long section about... Yeah, the difference between lower middle way and higher middle way.

So he's been off the subject more than he's been on the subject. And it's always for a good reason. But I started to get lost.

I don't know where Nick's text is. And I'm editing it. You know, and I'm like, I can't catch the flow.

I'm having trouble following the flow. And I have a proposal that each of you do an outline for your text. Basically, you're going to go through the headers.

And just do it in the English, it's okay, I don't mind. But do an outline for your text. If you have a root text, like Stanley has a root text, like Word has a root text, okay?

I think that's about it. Then put the root text in there too, so we can see the flow of the author. Okay.

And I'm going to show you. Here's the format I came up with yesterday. And I like it.

And suddenly, I understood your text. Yeah, so suddenly the whole thing made sense to me. And I suggest everybody do it.

You know, get your outline. Outline your text, slowly, which is all that's going to happen. And outline it.

Now, the people who are secondary translators, like Ruskies, and Ukrainskies, and Franzuskies, I have a suggestion. I'm going to give you guys the list of the 108 books. We have a list, the names, and the description of the books, and the page numbers, and the dates, and everything.

We have a long list. Translate it for us. It'll give you an education.

And, it will give us something to advertise for... subscribers. Subscribers.

What's subscriber mean? They pay every year.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
And maybe they get three or four books a year in a good year. Maybe they get no books in a bad year. But they keep going.

Because I want to protect you from Mr. Wu changing his mind. Okay. Or Tim not running the hotels at a profit.

So, get it in place, you know. If you get paid double, we can deal with that. Okay.

But as the first step, let's translate the list of books into many languages. And then we have to write a cover page which says, you know, that's going to be the hard thing to write, which is why you got to subscribe. And then we have to price it for your region, you know.

Like if you're in Ukraine, or if you're in Russia, or if you're in Mexico, or if you're in... you know, it's got to be priced at your level. So we're going to have to do all that.

Right, Katie? Okay, so here's the outline. It made the breakthrough for me.

So I suggest everybody do it. But his text in particular, it's not clear where it's going, or where it's been, because it's been so many distractions. It's just like a mixed nuts class.

Okay, so here we go.

[Speaker 2]
So it says, Up and Drop Box, under Geshe-las, or Nick. That's where you'll find it.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and I think it will help some of your readers. Put it at the end of the book, and, you know, we'll work on it. I'm not...

It's a work in progress, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Of course.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, so first, Offering of Praise. Why are there two Offerings of Praise? One of them is not included in the six verses.

One of them is a zero verse. Nope. Oh, one of them is from Gelts of Jaya.

Yeah, one of them is Gelts of Jaya's Offering of Praise. Okay, so it's a tradition, as you begin a Buddhist book, that you praise a holy object. The idea is that you get enough good karma to complete the book, okay?

At the same time, at the end of the praise, you usually promise to write the book. So in this book, we're going to have two Promises, and we're going to have two Praises. Why?

Because there's... Yeah, one by Gelts of Jaya, and one by Nagarjuna, okay? So I put these in square brackets because...

Those are by Gelts of Jaya? Yeah, those are Gelts of Jaya's own thing. They're not part of the commentary, really.

You see? Okay? No, it's the Nagarjuna's Praise and Promise that is interesting to Gelts of Jaya.

You see? He does this kind of thing. Okay, and don't stress about it.

Okay, now we're going to explain the original Offering of Praise. Why did I say original? Yeah, in Nagarjuna's...

60 Verses of Unreasoning. Don't forget the name of his book, it's important. Not the 60, but the Unreasoning part, okay?

All right. Why did he... Why did he make the Offering?

There's a long debate in Nick's text, okay? Then I put the Offering, okay? Here's Nagarjuna, in the bold, okay?

So if you're doing a text with verses, you can sprinkle the verses into the outline. And I had this inspiration to put them on the right side margin, so they jump out. You see?

They jump out. I bow down. This is Nagarjuna's opening lines, okay?

It's not considered one of the...

[Speaker 2]
60, it's zero, okay?

[Speaker 1]
And he's bowing down to the Buddha because he taught emptiness in terms of dependent origination, okay? Okay? Now, there's a summary of the...

He spends a lot of time on this. It's not unusual for an author to spend a lot of time to go into great detail in the first 50 pages, and then suddenly speed up. Okay?

It's not unusual at all. This guy spends, you know, 20 English pages on explaining the first four lines, then suddenly speeds up, because he sees he doesn't want to write a 1,000-page commentary, okay? Okay?

And it's very common. The first time I was content like that, okay? Okay, a summary of the words of praise, the actual meaning of the words, and then these weird guys come who are now...

who are now unknown. They are just names in obscure history books who were famous in Gyaltsabje's time. They come and attack him for his ideas about why Nagarjuna wrote this book.

And he defends them. And then you can see him like suddenly going, oh, I don't have time to go into this kind of detail. And suddenly he speeds up.

He gets back to the subject, and he speeds up, okay? All right, summary of the words of prostration. I don't think he does these two steps, but he said he would.

Then he's going to go to the actual text. Okay? Demonstrate that dependent origination is free from yutta and metha.

Thinking that things exist the way they look, and thinking that if they don't exist the way they look, they don't exist at all, okay? First he deals with refuting the view that everything is the way it looks, okay? Then he says, who is it that understood that the real meaning of dependence is emptiness?

Okay, which is the Buddha, okay? And here, here's the verse, which is really the first of the sixty verses. Those whose minds have gone beyond, thinking that things exist or not, who no longer dwell in that place, they understand that the meaning of the cause is that there's nothing there.

Okay? And that's his first verse, okay? Then there's a long discussion, which is five English pages, about can your mind exist during the direct perception of emptiness.

We got off the subject. Nagarjuna's not talking about it. Okay?

So, it makes it difficult for your reader. By the end of that, he forgot where he was.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
It happened to me. That's why I did the outline, because I said, I don't know where the hell he's going. I don't know where I am.

I don't remember, okay? Okay, then, there's advice that you should try to see emptiness, okay? Then you have two choices.

He can start writing about the idea that nothing exists at all, which is the reaction idea, right? If things aren't coming from their own side, then they don't exist at all. He says, let's talk about that one first.

And then he says, I'm not going to talk about it. Why? He says, Buddha covered that.

When?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, nice.

[Speaker 1]
When Buddha taught the lower way, he spent a lot of time on this one. And I don't have to go over it. Because the sixty verses is aimed at the lower way, he's going to use the lower school's scriptures as the gun to shoot them.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
He does not refer to Mahayana scriptures. That's his... He set himself a funny exercise.

He said, I'm going to screw those guys with their own books. You know? I don't have to use...

I don't have to use the Prajnaparamita. I'm going to mess them up with their own books. Okay?

Yeah, okay, yeah, okay. Has already been disproven. Buddha spent a lot of time on it.

I'm not going to cover it. Okay? That's easy.

Now, we have to listen to his proofs about why things aren't the way they seem. Yatha. They don't exist the way they look.

Okay? So listen to this, and I will give you what?

[Speaker 2]
Reasoning.

[Speaker 1]
That's why he called this book the sixty verses on reasoning. Because mainly he's dealing with this. I'm going to give you proofs why things don't exist the way they look.

And then the rest of the book is supposed to be all proofs. Okay? So here it is.

We're going to show the proofs which prove that things couldn't exist the way they look. Okay? And he starts with a tengyur.

He starts with a prasangika. Yeah. If things were...

If things did exist the way that they appear, then chivas would have already achieved nirvana. Okay? Then people who are nairyas would have achieved nirvana already, because they see this stuff all day.

If it's true, they saw the truth, they should reach nirvana already. He gives a prasangika. What's it?

A sarcastic statement. You know? All fruits are orange.

Yeah, so bananas are orange, right? Okay? Like he's coming back to the guy.

Okay? Oh! You know?

Everybody can see... Everybody can see that things... Everybody can see things how they really are.

How they really are? And he says, yeah, okay, so people who didn't see emptiness, they reached nirvana or something? Huh?

Then he asks whether or not he's given a prasangika. Yeah. So suppose these things are real in the way that non-nairyas think they are.

Well, would you agree that those guys had already blinked out because he's talking to lower school people? Oh, they must have already blinked out. They must have already gone to nirvana.

Right? They must... All those people who didn't see emptiness blinked out, and those guys trying to struggle to see emptiness are still here in samsara.

Right? It's a sarcasm, right? Bananas are orange, right?

Okay, got it? Then what happened? A disaster for your reader.

Incidental points, meaning you wanted to compare the lower and higher schools, middle and upper schools. It comes before that. Yeah, right.

The incidental points are... are relevant incidental points. Yeah.

Okay? Now, that...

[Speaker 2]
A digression.

[Speaker 1]
He took two folios, which is... which is ten English pages. And then the appendix is probably twenty.

More, it's like thirty-three, I think. Okay, so you got almost fifty pages. The reader is off-subject.

He's off on a digression. And Gyatso Je himself calls it a digression. He confesses that it's a digression.

I think he went to Tsongkhapa's teaching on this subject that day. Yeah, because there's a record of that happening.

[Speaker 2]
Anyway...

[Speaker 1]
So it gets confusing. Then he comes back to the subject, which is supposed to be talking about why things don't exist the way they seem. This is not a book about the difference between two Mahayana schools in a book where the author promised to stick to the Hinayana.

Okay? Come on, Gyatso Je.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
All right? Got it? So he comes back.

And then he kind of gets back on the subject. Okay? If things...

If you don't see things the way they are, if there's a discrepancy between the way things appear and the way they are, you're going to stay in samsara. You will not achieve nirvana. Okay?

Got it? Now, if you got to a point where there is no more discrepancy and the way it looks is the way it is, then you're by definition, an Arya, in the direct perception of emptiness. Okay?

Because even after that, they don't exist the way they look. But if things are appearing the way they really are, and you're seeing them that way, you've got to be in the direct perception of emptiness. Because that's the only time they match.

Okay? Got it? Those great beings achieve liberation by fully understanding what's real and what's unreal.

It means direct perception. Okay? There's no longer any discrepancy between what's real and what's unreal.

Okay? Now, people come back to defend the idea that things exist the way they look. You know, the other guy comes back.

He says, Now, look, you had your chance, Gyaltsabje Dangarjuna. Now, let me give my story of why things do exist the way they look. Okay?

Got it? So, that's going to come back. This is tough, okay?

Demonstrating that and denying these proofs for the two extremes. Scriptural proofs are incorrect. This is, this is dang un-understandable.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Now, I know. See if you can get this. This is hard.

Okay? Okay, let's start with the two extremes. Okay?

Is it something you prove or you disprove? The two extremes.

[Speaker 2]
Disprove. Disprove. Okay?

Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
So, do we deny proofs that they exist?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
We do. But here, he says, don't use scripture to do that. Oh, right.

Because you need logic? That's why it's a 60 verses on reasoning? Okay.

What? Or this could mean while you're denying the two extremes and the other guys come back with, Buddha talked about why things do exist the way they seem, it's wrong to quote him on that. Don't quote those statements where he said, nirvana comes from itself.

Nirvana exists really. Don't quote me that. Yeah.

Okay? That's what it really means. It does start going into stuff like that.

This is what it really means.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
So, this sentence is deceptive. Out of context. Yeah.

He even talks about chong yin a little bit. Yeah. Don't give me statements where Buddha said that nirvana and samsara really exist.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Because those are not going to prove, they're not going to hurt my denial that things don't exist the way they seem. Okay, got it? Don't quote Buddha to me.

Okay? Because he was being nice to you. Yeah.

He was accommodating you. And you were, he understood you were stupid, so he said it. But he didn't mean it.

Okay, got it? Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Sure.

[Speaker 1]
So, those who have not seen emptiness directly are deluded about nirvana and samsara. That's all. They...

Now listen. Those people who haven't seen emptiness directly don't understand what nirvana is, and they don't understand what samsara is. And they're trying to get out of samsara and reach nirvana.

They think what they have in mind that they'd like to reach with their Buddhist practices and nirvana that comes from its own side. And what they have in mind with their Buddhist practice to get out of is a samsara which comes from its own side. Okay?

They're messed up on both. Okay? They don't know what they're getting away from, and they don't know what they're going through.

Got it? The reason they're in samsara is...

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Is they don't understand what it is. Okay, got it? Now, if you're one of those people who thinks nirvana is coming from its own side, or you think samsara is coming from its own side, and you believe proofs where the...

and you use those proofs, statements by the Buddha that they do come from their own side, you will never reach nirvana. Okay? That's...

That's the next job. Now, this is tough. It is not seen by realized beings.

Okay? Your version of nirvana is invisible to an Arya.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, got it? Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? Your version of nirvana is invisible to an Arya. And your version of samsara is invisible to an Arya.

Because your version of nirvana and your version of samsara is one that comes from its own side. Okay, got it? And an Arya, in the direct perception of emptiness, cannot see your samsara, and cannot see your nirvana.

Because they don't exist. Got it? Okay?

Okay. Those who have seen emptiness directly, they... they understand samsara, and they understand nirvana, are coming from...

[Speaker 2]
them.

[Speaker 1]
They're on seeds. Okay, got it? Now, this is where we are, and it took me two days to get this IE.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Because the category, the section, is called, why it's correct. And no more detail. He doesn't say anything else.

You got to study the whole thing. You got to understand the whole thing. Okay?

So we haven't really translated any of this part yet?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
And that's why I went into Tibetan.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
But we're there, and I didn't know what's correct. Because he never says it. Okay?

He says, we're going to prove why it's correct. The correctness of that. What?

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
So can an Arya achieve nirvana? Yes.

[Speaker 2]
Does nirvana exist? No. Well, not the way that...

[Speaker 1]
Not the way you studied. Not the way that... Got it?

Okay. Sipa dang niyanga denyupa dini yo mayen. What's it mean?

Oh, it says, samsara and nirvana both don't exist. Neither exist. Good.

Samsara and nirvana, both of these, they don't exist. Yo mayen. They don't exist at all.

When you say yo mayen in Tibetan, they don't exist at all. Okay? From their own side.

Right?

[Speaker 2]
Yep.

[Speaker 1]
The next section. bang gi nyen nyang de ngur sungway, shen la nyang de thopa mi thepa. Because we just had a thepa, why it's correct for an Arya to achieve nirvana, because they understand what nirvana is.

Okay? And we're going to demonstrate how we identify nirvana. Okay?

And by doing that, we will prove that it's impossible for you to reach your nirvana.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Got it? Mi the. It's incorrect to say nirvana could be reached if nirvana exists the way you think it does from its own side.

Sure. If nirvana is not coming from your seeds, you can't reach it. Okay, got it?

Now, inside there, we're going to have a brief presentation, and we're going to have a long presentation. Okay. And...

sipa yong su shepa nyi nyang ngen le de she char By the way, the other day he puts too many syllables in it. But we agreed to let him have his version. We agreed to let him have his version.

Yeah. So I left it there. Now, here's where we're coming to.

This is the fruits of your outlying labor.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Now you get the... Now you... Now the outline's going to help you.

Because the next section says, when you understand samsara, that is nirvana. This is who? Who said...

Who would say something like that? Omni nirgara. Omni nirgara.

Okay. I forget. sipa yong su...

Here, we'll go to your text. Oh, there it is. I got it.

I found it. Where is it? Is it seven?

It's on page 79. It's 6B. Yeah, it's 6B.

Yeah. Now listen. And don't forget.

Because now you'll appreciate his text. Okay? To understand what samsara is, is nirvana.

Okay? He goes off on that. He goes off on that.

Nagarjuna. Okay? It's kidding, like psychedelic.

Like someone took a drug, you know. Kefan statement? Kefan is the most popular drug in China right now.

Not that I've ever tried it.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. We're about to reach that section.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
And it gets sexy. Super sexy. But I wanted you to know where we are.

You can't achieve nirvana, and you can't escape samsara, that you think they are, because those don't exist. Okay? They don't even exist.

They're impossible. Okay? Got it?

That's where we are. And that is a yatha. It's an existing thing.

Oh, that would be an extreme view, yeah. Yeah. You are misunderstanding the way they are.

Yeah. Sure, of course. Okay?

You believe they have to exist self-existently. Therefore, you can't reach nirvana. Why?

Because you don't understand what samsara is. Uh-huh. Okay?

Got it?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
All right, here we go. Now we're back to your text.

[Speaker 2]
Yep.

[Speaker 1]
But I was so relieved in the car when we hit Arias. Uh-huh. Because now we know what we're trying to...

No, I said now I know why the hell he's talking about correct. Uh-huh. Okay?

It means it's correct for us to reach nirvana. It's not correct for you to reach nirvana, because your nirvana comes from its own side. Okay?

Go. Now we're caught up.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Unless he goes on another digression, which is probable. Yeah. Thank you, Geshe Michael.

Yeah, and you should all make outlines. Yeah. Okay?

Yeah, cool, fun. Okay, fun. Okay.

Okay. Okay, nice. It's a long debate.

Okay? Uh, let's go. Is there root text up here?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Sure is. There's root text. Give your audience the root text in English.

Sipa meaning sansara in this case, meaning the wheel of pain, cycle of suffering, and nirvana. Neither one exists. Yeah.

None of those two even exist. Okay? Got it?

That's the root text. Now here's Gyaltsabje's explanation. Oh, boy.

Uh, korwa dang. Korwa. Sansara.

Nyanga na depa. Nirvana. Rang kyi chenay kyi.

Dub na. They don't exist from their own... No.

Oh, existence from their own side, that definition. Dub na. Uh, if they were to exist by definition.

Yeah, if they existed from their own side the way you think they do.

[Speaker 2]
Okay? Uh-huh.

[Speaker 1]
Then, parpe nyamsak kyi. By seeing emptiness directly. Yeah.

When an Arya is watching emptiness directly, they should see them. Uh-huh. They should come in their scope, in their sights.

Yeah. Okay? If sansara existed ultimately, if nirvana existed ultimately, then a guy who's watching the ultimate, should see him.

Uh-huh. He should come into his TV, you know?

[Speaker 2]
Uh-huh.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? Rig na yang. But the fact is...

Sipa dang nyam. Okay? Rig na yang means, but that ain't the way it is.

[Speaker 2]
Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Okay?

Cool, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
But, what really happens is, sipa dang... Uh, sorry. I think I'm going to be just repeating it again.

Sipa dang nyam na depa nyipo di nyi... So, it's repeating what the root text says now.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
They don't exist... They're not things that exist in their own nature, or by nature. Yeah, but because they don't exist, through some nature of their own, okay?

Because they don't exist, then they are like a sujna. Sujna means a reflection in a mirror.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
The image in the glass, not the person in front. Okay? The image in the glass.

They are like... What's like a sujna? Sansara and nirvana.

Nice, nice. Sansara, in fact, they are like a reflection in the glass. Uh-huh.

Because they're coming from you, exactly reflecting your behavior towards other people. Uh-huh. You see?

Okay? The world is a reflection of you, how you treated people last week. Okay?

Got it? It's a beautiful image, even sansara and even nirvana, okay? Therefore, Yeah, to see things which don't exist by nature, is not to see emptiness.

To look at sansara and to look at nirvana, because they are like a reflection in a mirror, okay, just looking at them, is not to see their true nature. You can think about nirvana, and you can think about escaping from sansara, but you can do it in a way where you don't understand them at all. Okay.

Yeah, and not understand them, because they are like a reflection.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and, if you could see emptiness by just thinking about sansara and nirvana in the wrong way, well then, people with rub drips, rub drips, where it is the famous rub-drip source, karma, rub-drip, marmaid, and gimasub, chubu, na, mi, lang, lo, tan, chen, dag, gu, du, chi, chi, na, de, ta, ta, the second image in the... at the end of the diamond cutter.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Then people with rub-drip would also see emptiness. Okay, okay. If to look at a reflection is to see the true nature of something, then people who see planets, where there's no planets, because they're looking at a spot on their own eye, are seeing ultimate reality.

Okay, got it? That's a weird jump, but yes. Yeah, they're also seeing planets.

Okay. Or jache. What's jache?

Literally? Yeah, jache. They're also seeing hairs on the white porcelain sink that never come off, no matter how much they rub, because it's a scratch on their own cornea.

Okay, got it? Famous example. All right?

I think I understand. Okay. Go!

Nipo, nipo, te, tat, la, nyan, de, mi, te, pa, la, sink, three, rang, gi, nyan, de, nga, sung, we, shen, la, nyan, de, to, pa, mi, te, tan, rang, la, te, pa, o. I don't know whether to split this in two or three. I will know when we get to it, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
But I'll give it to you now, okay? Nipo, the two, which you got to know means samsara and nirvana.

[Speaker 2]
Like this one.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. De, da, la, I read it as de, da, le. Of those two, okay?

Of those two, nirvana is incorrect, okay? Your nirvana is incorrect, okay? To demonstrate to you that your nirvana is incorrect, I'm going to go through two or three steps, okay?

I split them into three here, but I think he might only make them into two. First of all, I'm going to identify for you what my nirvana is.

[Speaker 2]
Whose nirvana?

[Speaker 1]
Nagarjuna.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, Nagarjuna.

[Speaker 1]
Good, yeah. So that's what he says, when he says nirvana, he's basically saying, I'll introduce you to it or something like that? I'm going to, yeah, I'm going to identify for you what's my version of nirvana.

And when I do so, you will understand that the one you described is unreachable.

[Speaker 2]
Thogme me thepa.

[Speaker 1]
Could never be. Could never be. And that's where the thepa came way up above, never explained, nobody said anything.

He said, we're right. And it doesn't mean that. It means, our version of nirvana is right, and it's reachable.

But he didn't say that. He just said, pakpa sarthepa. Yeah, okay.

Look, we knew that. Then he says, rang la thepa. Are we all correct?

No.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, wrong.

[Speaker 1]
It is okay in our version of nirvana to reach it. Oh.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
If you explain nirvana the way we want to explain it, that it's coming from your seeds, it's reachable. And so is money, and so is good health, and so is a nice relationship. You see?

If it's coming, if it's our version of health, money, nice relationship, it's attainable. And if it's not our version, it is not attainable. Okay?

You will never get it. You will fight and struggle, and you'll die first. Okay?

Ready? Alright. Alright.

Now, dampa la dor ten dang gye she. What's it mean? It means, first of all, it's for...

briefly, a brief teaching. Yeah. I'm going to explain to you in brief, number one here, rang gi nyam de nusul.

I'm going to identify what's nirvana in our opinion.

[Speaker 2]
And then I'm going to...

[Speaker 1]
You're going to get an extensive explanation. Yeah, I'm going to explain to you briefly, and then I'm going to like, give you a lot of blah blah, and give you more information, because you're too stupid to understand my brief one.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
No, not you, the other guy. Okay? Now, the next sentence is shen lu.

Okay? Nobody told you, I'm telling you. Wow.

Otherwise you'll bust your head. That's crazy.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, thanks a lot.

[Speaker 1]
No, there's a shen out here. But, uh, he starts rang lu, with a shen lu. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, I guess that's not that one.

[Speaker 1]
He starts our position, which he repeated two or three times, is our position, by giving you the other guy's position.

[Speaker 2]
First of all.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? Here we go. Here's the brief presentation of my position, and it starts with the other guy.

It's kind of confusing. Okay. Okay.

nyang de she jawa chi yang yupa ma yin na pak de nyang de tok par nam par shak pa de ni chi tar gyur she na Yeah. nyang de chi yang me yin na I'm going to put it in Lion's Dance language. If nyang de is chi yang me...

If Nirvana is just blanking out... Good. If Nirvana ain't nothing...

Honey, okay? If Nirvana is nothing, then... pak de nyang de chi tar tok Then, uh...

What? Then, Arya's... You don't need to see...

No.

[Speaker 2]
Then...

[Speaker 1]
Arya's can't attain Nirvana. Yeah, then how's your Arya going to get to it?

[Speaker 2]
You know?

[Speaker 1]
You say my version of Nirvana is wrong. Okay, let's go with your version, which doesn't exist. Then, what kind of Arya can attain that?

Can you explain to me?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? You Madhyamika guys, Prasangika guys, you say Nirvana doesn't even exist. Okay, so how's someone going to reach it, please?

Got it? Yeah. Alright, here we go.

Oh, wow. Cool, the root text. Yeah, we got to the super sexy line of his text.

Uh-huh. sipa yong su she pa ni nyang de de she jar gyur Too many beats. Too many beats.

Thanks, Gyeltsabje. Is it supposed to say ngyen de, or... I decided to correct him.

Oh, to fix the beats. Just because it's out of meter. We decided to keep his version for historical interest.

But here, I just couldn't stand it. It's got too many beats. It should have said, nyang ngen de she jar gyur nyang ngen de she jar gyur sipa yong su she pa ni pa ta pa ta pa pa pa Okay, but his says pa ta pa ta pa pa pa pa ta No, it says that.

I checked.

[Speaker 2]
You checked it already.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I checked it. Because I was curious.

[Speaker 2]
In our version of the sixty verses, it has it.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. The ten-year version has the way I did it.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, right, right, right.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, here we go. sipa rang shin me par ngun sum tu yong su she pa ni la nyang ngen re ngen re pa tok che jar war gyur pa yin pe ta nye tu me par ma jug ching tun tam tu kya par ma jug po Okay, difficult, but doable. sipa rang shin me par ngun sum tu yong su she pa When you see directly that samsara has no nature of its own, that's what we call achieving nirvana.

Okay. Who's talking? Nagarjuna.

Well, Nagarjuna. Yeah, yeah. Got it?

Yeah. Is it true? Not typically enough.

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
If you really understand the nature of samsara, is that nirvana? Not really. Have you achieved nirvana?

[Speaker 2]
We would not typically say that.

[Speaker 1]
No, but he's saying it here, okay? Okay, che jar war gyur pe Therefore, I don't have either of the problems that you have. Okay?

Because my nirvana is just understanding what samsara is. I don't have the two problems that you have. What two problems does the other guy have?

ta nye tu me par ma jug You cannot say nirvana doesn't exist, even nominally, okay, which is what he just did. He said, if it don't exist, how do Arya's achieve it? We said, excuse me, if it were your nirvana, I agree, but it's not.

My nirvana is when you just understand samsara. So, first problem, no problem. And moreover, you don't have to say that just because if it does exist, it must be den dam du yan.

It has to be an ultimate thing. Yeah. Okay, got it?

He's got two problems he's gonna fall into. ta nye tu me par ma jug He did it here again. Okay?

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
If my nirvana isn't what?

[Speaker 2]
Ultimate?

[Speaker 1]
Understanding what samsara is, okay? If my nirvana wasn't understanding what samsara is, yeah, okay, you'd be okay. You could say, nominally it didn't exist, or you could say, ultimately, it would have to exist.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
I'm sorry, it would have to be ultimate.

[Speaker 2]
You wouldn't have to say either of those.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, but if nirvana is the way I say it is, your two problems are not valid anymore. Okay, what does Nagarjuna say nirvana is here?

[Speaker 2]
Understanding samsara thoroughly.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, just understand samsara. That's nirvana. He is, and thank you.

Brilliant. I will give you a hundred dollars. Unasked.

Say it again. Well done. Ah, you're so impressed me.

I'm going to give you a hundred dollars. But don't get a big head. Nice.

Man, that was hot. I got to say. I mean, I understood it a couple sentences later.

Okay, here we go. Nibbāni. Nibbā is the Gepa Sherpa.

Okay. He gave his point in a brief way. Okay, now he's going to explain it more.

We are. Okay, go. This is tough.

Yeah. And we'll get through it, okay? Let's not deal with the rude text right now, okay?

No, let's do it. Okay, I'll do the pieces, and then we'll get to the explanation, okay? And it's difficult, but it's doable.

That's why I define his text, mostly. Difficult, but doable. Okay.

Ngopo jungwa. When normal stuff starts, okay, happens, okay? And then it's jikpa.

Jikpa. In ancient past tense. Okay, which Gyaltsabje later justifies, keeping the word.

Okay, when a thing happens, and then it's destroyed, okay? We name it an ending. We call it impermanence, okay?

We call it changing. We call it change. A thing comes, a thing happens, and a thing stops, and we name it impermanence, or stopping, okay?

A stopping, okay? But that's only a naming, okay? On something happening, and something stopping.

But, it's happening because of your mental seeds opening. Okay, got it? It's just a naming.

Okay, got it? It's not coming this way. In the same way, samsara is stopped with nirvana.

And it's all just names. It's all just pictures coming from your mind, okay? Got it?

So what he's doing is, he's comparing the cessation of samsara to the cessation of a finger snap. Okay, it comes into existence, and it goes out of existence, because of your seeds. When you go from samsara to nirvana, it's the same thing, okay?

Impermanence is just an idea. And so is nirvana and samsara, and the passage from samsara to nirvana, okay? So you're just expounding on that right now, Vishnu, right?

I'm not saying nirvana and nirvana is first, right? Oh, this is how the Holy Ones, this is the position taken, shed by the Holy Ones, when they say, the stopping of samsara is like an illusion. No, that's stopping.

Yeah, meaning of samsara. And he puts an... he makes it adjectival.

The cessation is an illusion-like cessation. Okay, it's an illusion-ish cessation. Okay, he makes it an adjective.

With apostrophe I, yeah. He makes like an illusion an adjective. Yeah, now look, this is interesting.

I decided to start putting in the Tenggyur version, okay? And we decided not to change Gyaltsabje's version, but we'll add the Tenggyur version at the end. But we'll also put it in as we go, just to note the differences.

And this is the only one. And it's, in fact, later in his commentary, Gyaltsabje defends the bee. Okay, and no one else has it.

Okay, you got it. I want the bee there. You want to know what he says?

Buddha left the bees in, in the Sutras, and I'm doing it too. Okay, forget the Tenggyur, that's a new thing.

[Speaker 2]
You know?

[Speaker 1]
I'm sticking with the word... I'm sticking with the spelling that Buddha used. Then I went to the Kangyur and looked for Bishik.

It's ain't there. That's strange. He's referring to something specific in Sanskrit.

I thought it was actually represented with a bee. I looked for it just out of curiosity, and I believe it's not there. It's understandable.

I mean, it's okay. We understand it has to be that, but it's not very elegant. And whoever did the Tenggyur translation decided to change it.

Yeah, we're finally cracking this thing. Maybe. Do your outlines, and I'm going to send you the list of the 108 books.