Классика Алмазного огранщика: Верхний Срединный путь — Великие книги мудрости, занятие 45

[Speaker 2]
So, once again, I don't expect you guys to remember this, but I'm going to give you a chance to remember this stuff. It's kind of tricky, but at least, the purpose of this homework is to at least kind of give us perspective on where we are in the text. As we reach the 11th verse of our Integration of the Sixty Verses, we are at the second part of the section of Yosef J.'s commentary. What section of Yosef J.'s commentary are we in? We are in the section of the commentary explaining how our version of Nirvana is correct. And within that, there are two visions.

There is a reason that Aryas in the direct perception of emptiness don't see changing things. And this is what the expression, you've done what you've had to do, when you have accustomed yourself to that, refers to. And then, so we're in the reason that Aryas in the direct perception of emptiness don't see changing things section of the how our version of Nirvana is correct.

Which is part of a division that was part of a previous division. And then, within the reason that Aryas in the direct perception of emptiness don't see changing things, there is a couple of visions. We're finishing the section called the Actual Explanation.

Just context, okay? Just trying to get a handle. This is more for me than for you.

I care about you, but I care about me more. I'll just give a meditation on the opposite of that. Don't scream.

Go ahead. Okay. This is a bet for done what I had to do.

There's no money for this. A hundred dollars for the previous question. Yes, you got it.

Chah-wah-jay. Chah-wah-jay-so. That's what he keeps repeating through the text.

No? Yeah, but he never says pa. You can just say chah-wah-jay.

He did? Chah-wah-jay-pa? I believe he did.

Oh, well there you go. Chah-wah-jay-pa. I'll just sit down and let her sit.

Probably a good idea. Probably a good idea. I should be sorry.

That's the whole point. Really? Our Indigarjuna's 11th verse starts with, That thing seen in this life, that's also did what he had to do.

Then he makes another point about our favorite arhat. Anybody remember? No, not who's the arhat.

That's all we got. He says something about him. I put two lines of the verse for a reason.

The whole, I mean, beyond. How am I still a brown if I'm Bach-made and I'm an arhat? Yeah.

Then he kind of elaborates on that a little bit. Slightly. Do you remember Geshe-la?

I'm not testing you. I'm just wondering if you remember.

[Speaker 1]
Wait, who goes on? Shariputra.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, well, Aryadev, Khyaltsabje actually quotes Master Chandrakirti. He quotes the commentary, which is probably Master Chandrakirti, making some point about Shariputra.

[Speaker 1]
The story about Shariputra writing what's called a sutra to describe what happened to him after he reached arhat is only found in Chandrakirti's work.

[Speaker 2]
Right, right, right.

[Speaker 1]
That I can find.

[Speaker 2]
Right. And then Khyaltsabje quotes Chandrakirti as having made a point. Okay, great, for 20 bucks.

[Speaker 1]
Well, now people woke up. What?

[Speaker 2]
Now you owe me 20 bucks.

[Speaker 1]
Suddenly Sugeng's fork is like this.

[Speaker 2]
Actually, in this life, Nirvana, that was the... Yeah? Good.

That's 50% of the point. As a result of seeing the difficulty. Yeah.

I'll show you now. Yeah, 10 bucks.

[Speaker 1]
Wait, Takumi said 10 years out of your life is half of 80. So her answer must be a $15 answer.

[Speaker 2]
Wait a minute. Khyalpabhajan? Shariputra achieved nirvana first and then reached the end of his life.

So that was the point. The thing seen in this life. The thing that was seen in his life was that he was reaching nirvana.

Okay. No, I was just thinking that arhat actually means like they overcome death, no? It does?

No, it's not. The enemy is only mental afflictions or also death.

[Speaker 1]
Depends on which school you're in.

[Speaker 2]
I guess you could interpret it.

[Speaker 1]
Depends on which school you're in.

[Speaker 2]
Right, Pacman and Pacman. Yeah, seals. And we found really strong evidence to support almost every Pacmanian scheme we came up with.

From mental afflictions to mistaking the way of viewing the world to the pain in itself to rebirth. Meaning facts are given to you. There was torture.

Yeah, there was. There was support for all of those as the meaning of what you had done for you. Uh-huh.

When you're what? Made. Right.

Cool. Tibetan used for seen in this life? Say it again?

Tongche. Yeah, Tongche.

[Speaker 1]
Tongche, nice.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, cool. Oh, maybe I just left number two. This is the third question.

Gautam Jay, in criticizing the idea that the emptiness seen in direct perception of emptiness has features, picks on a certain, I wonder if I'll remember the answer to this, picks on a certain Adi-Dharma concept, what is it and how many parts does it have during tonglen?

[Speaker 1]
16 aspects?

[Speaker 2]
No, it has 15 during tonglen. Very good. And the 16th is up.

Yeah, it's a much easier question. Apparently there are a few. Well, I didn't go that far, but yes.

That is the picking on that happens. Yes. When is tonglen?

The path of seeing. Sorry. I was just putting the pronunciation.

You don't have to tell me Tibetan. Oh, yeah, no, I got it. A couple more Tibetan words kind of sections and then we're good.

Chö Chö. Chö Chö? Wow.

[Speaker 1]
Juk Thop.

[Speaker 2]
Who said that? Yeah. Wow.

Good job. Goal moment without habituation. Third or fourth pass.

That's it. All right, we're done. Hey.

Perfecto.

[Speaker 1]
You guys seem so sleepy. When I give my dog breakfast, then he gets up on the couch and he goes ... Maybe we should eat afterwards.

Okay. Oh, I have to take the plane. Okay, here we go.

Please read, Mr. Nick. Please make sure the first S is long. Yeah, nice.

Therefore ... And he has three synonyms here. Shunyi, dharmata, which is the real nature of things.

Or you can say, tombanyi, shunyata, emptiness. Or you can say, lack of self-nature. Rangshir mepa, all of which he puts an adjective in front of them, dependent origination emptiness.

Dependent origination, where things are. Dependent origination, no nature. And the point is that he wants to nail down that he's talking about the highest version of emptiness, which is related to dependent origination.

So sometimes they call it dependent origination emptiness. And it just means I'm talking about the seed one, the seeds, mental seeds. Okay?

[Speaker 2]
No, the school would confuse that as theirs?

[Speaker 1]
They could. But he doesn't want us to. Okay?

He wants to nail down that he's talking about the highest kind of emptiness. It ... Ye-was of it, me.

There are no visions of it where things are different. Mindawa. There are no divisions of it, of different aspects.

Nama-mindawa division, me. There's no division of it, of different aspects. Therefore, and then he says something controversial, the denpa-lomba-thopa, the experience of reality, lasts for one second, and that's it.

Seto. That's it. Okay?

Because it cannot have different variations, the whole experience lasts only a single second. Split second. And that's it.

Seto means that's all. No more. Then it's done.

Which is not true. But ... it's an interesting position.

I think ... I don't think he's trying to say he really believes it lasts for one second. Because it lasts about 20 minutes.

But he's trying to say there's no other kecik machu duk. There's no 16 instance, or 15 instance that people talk about. It's kind of one instance in the sense of there's no variation.

Okay? But forget this thing about 15 instance or 16 instance of different experiences inside of the experience of emptiness. He says forget that.

Okay? Now, we're going to split this off, Nick. Go ahead.

This is a trick I learned from my dog also. He spreads the bad stuff around on the plane until I take away. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
No. Jitabu. No.

Ji is question mark.

[Speaker 2]
What the ... Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. What about those 16 that they always talk about? Jitabu.

Okay. Somebody comes up and says, well, if it's only one instance that you have the direct experience of emptiness, what's all these books that talk about 16 aspects or 16 moments? Jitabu.

What's that all about? Yeah. This division into 16 instance, each one which relates to one of the four aspects of each of the four higher truths.

Okay? What about that? That's described in scripture.

What about that? He says.

[Speaker 2]
Then ... Okay. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
The important here and the difficult word here is dokpa. Zen dokpa. Dokpa.

Dokpa means the opposite of all that it's not. The opposite of all that it's not. And when you're talking dokpas, you're not talking about the actual direct experience.

You're talking about how you describe it. Okay? So dokpa means the opposite of all that it's not.

But in philosophy it means I'm talking about it as an idealized thing, and I'm not talking about the specific instance.

[Speaker 2]
And dokpa always means that. And how are we specifically referring to it?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. And it comes from Adam's text. The opposite of all that it's not.

[Speaker 2]
So ... It's a very South Antica idea.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, but we do accept such an idea, that you could talk in the abstract about 16 instance, but it's not exactly related to anything rangchenpa, to the actual occurrence of it. It's just a way of talking about the direct experience of emptiness. But when you say dokpa, it means it's just a way of talking about it.

It's not that there's actually 16 separate experiences inside. Okay? So dokpa is a difficult word.

It means it's a way of talking about it. It's not that there's really 16 instance. Okay?

It's just a dokpa. And it's not the dokpa that means to give a name. That's aumdana or dokpa.

So don't mistake that. It's a prenasal dok, ndok, but it's not aumdok. It's not that one.

It just means when you're talking in the abstract about the path of seeing, you can talk about 16 aspects. But when you're talking about the reality of it, there's not 16 aspects. Okay?

Got it? It's a difficult sentence. Yeah, when you talk about 16 instance, it's just established with regard to how we generally talk about it.

It's not that there are 16 instance. Okay? It's just a ...

It's not exactly a metaphor. I don't know. When you talk about ...

When you look at Anatole doing a pause, that's rangchenpa. That's a direct experience. But then you can go home and say, Anatole was working on a pause, and it had different parts, and the description can be elaborated, but it doesn't mean the actual pause was that way.

Okay? Got it? That's a dokpa.

It's a difficult expression. He's talking in the abstract. The 16 instance, our shakpa, our jokpa, are established only in terms of the abstract.

Okay? But not in terms of reality. Okay?

Okay? And then he says, denpa, yeah, the reality, meaning ultimate reality, or just reality, de dang de, tong nyi tokpay cha ne, you know, you can talk about the separate emptinesses of truth, of such and such a truth. This denpa means the four.

Okay? De dang de, such and such, truth number one, truth number two, truth number three, truth number four. You can talk about such and such of four Arya truths.

Okay? You can talk about them, and you can talk about perceiving their emptinesses of each of those four. Okay?

You can talk about that. And from that theoretical point of view, abstracted point of view, okay, you can talk about dungyel shepa and kunjung shepa. So there's two traditional divisions of the experience of the four Arya truths.

One is called shepa. One is called suppa. Shepa means the direct experience.

Suppa means... And during shepa, what's happening? There's a wrestling match.

There's a wrestling match between your negativities. For example, an intellectual belief in self-existence is fighting with this direct experience of an Arya for the first time. That's called shepa.

That's called the knowledge stage of the experience. And then, the second stage of the experience, after you come out, and you say, I saw emptiness, that's called suppa, or mastery. So, we talk about...

The four truths are dungyel, suffering, kunjung, gopa, lam. And each of these has a shepa and a suppa. dungyel shepa, dungyel suppa, kunjung shepa, kunjung suppa, gopa shepa, gopa suppa, lam shepa, lam suppa.

They each have two divisions. Each of the four truths has two divisions, in abstract. Okay?

So, you can talk about perceiving the emptiness of each, of such and such of the four Arya truths, and you can divide them into parts that you have understood. And you can say, the knowledge stage of the truth of suffering, the knowledge stage of the truth of the source of suffering, et cetera, sok, okay? And you can even divide them in a, in an abstract way, in a theoretical way, dokpa, again dokpa, into knowledge and mastery stages.

[Speaker 2]
So... Is it like saying, looking back, there must have been a wrestling match?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's nice. You can say that. Yeah, looking back, now that I don't have an intellectual belief in self-existence, there must have been a wrestling match going on while I was in the direct perception of emptiness.

That's a nice way to put it. Yeah, you can say that. That's a nice way to put it.

So, the first part of this sentence is talking about the knowledge stage of each of the four truths, and then the sok dang means you can further go ahead in the abstract and divide them into knowing and mastery, okay? These two stages, okay? Go ahead.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, who was it asked this morning who wrote the Five Heaps thing?

[Speaker 1]
No, it was Utpala. Was it you? Oh, it was you.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So we said Chandrakirti, here it is. Okay.

Now, this sentence is hard, unlike the rest of the book. YANG MA YIN TE, well, let's go there. YANG MA YIN TE means, and don't think that we don't accept these distinctions, these expressions, knowledge of the four truths, mastery of the four truths.

Don't think that, as the highest school, as the attackers in this book, and not the defenders in this book, don't think that we reject those terms. We don't. Well, how can you prove that?

By the way, because we kept saying in the abstract. But moreover, Master Chandrakirti, in his book called The Five Heaps, talks about those divisions. He talks about mastery.

He talks about knowledge. And by the way, his book is just called Pumbangai Rabche. But our author has switched it to the Middle Way book about the five heaps.

He changed the title. Chandrakirti, in his Five Heaps book from the Middle Way, also talks, meaning the highest school also accepts these terms in the abstract. Okay, keep going.

Just do that much.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. The basket of the scriptures of the listeners.

[Speaker 1]
Good. In some of the Hinayana scriptures, kha chig le, they talk about ke che ma chi.

[Speaker 2]
They talk about one moment.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. In some of the lower way scriptures, they talk basket of scriptures. They talk about a single instant.

And then in others, they talk about chong ha.

[Speaker 2]
Fifteen.

[Speaker 1]
Fifteen instants, right? Cutting off the last one, which is gong lam, in their system. The first fifteen are tong lam, in their system.

Yeah, and those two presentations are not contradictory, especially if you take the fifteen to be in the abstract. Okay, right? Because that's kind of what we're saying.

So you do see presentations in the Hinayana scriptures where they describe the direct experience of emptiness as a single instant, meaning many instants of a single kind. And you do see them talk about fifteen instants, but it's not contradictory. And here we go.

Yeah, that presentation about fifteen, this is the word sepa again, meaning, it's that and no more. And he emphasizes it with sam. Sam tu se.

It's nothing more. Don't take it to be some big deal. It's nothing more than they are talking about gyula kye rim.

This is not the kye rim of tantra. They're just talking about the stages in which they appear in your mind. They're just talking about the stages in which it appears in your mind.

But it's all the same. The fifteen instants are all the same. It's just that they're going to come one after another.

And Buddha is using, Tanye Natsok is using different wordings. He's using different wordings to the ngo of those who trip a la ga. They gawa.

Yeah, they like complicated things. So he's just trying to appeal specifically to those guys, ngo la, to those guys who like, like Abhidharma guys, they want fifteen divisions or sixteen divisions. He's just trying to make them happy.

Can you make it more complicated? Yes. I'll give you fifteen divisions.

And they're like, ah, that's good. Now we can make a list. Okay?

And sam tu se. It's nothing more than that. It's nothing more than that.

Two reasons why he gave fifteen. Number one, things do come up in your mind stream during that experience. Number two, those guys just like a more complicated presentation.

This tripa means complicated. And ngo la means just for their benefit. Ngo means just for their benefit.

To them, to their face. Yeah, who like complicated stuff. He taught them using a whole bunch of expressions.

Like dun gyal, dun gyal tong, dun gyal, mi tat dun gyal tongpa dak me. Those are the first four. I don't remember the other twelve.

But that's a tradition. Okay. By the way, people rarely talk about the other ones.

They always talk about the first four. You can find them. I've made, I've written them in different notes and stuff, but it's, I don't, the one is called khen, khen gyu, source.

Yeah, it has names like that. Okay. Okay.

You want to pull them up? Or is it convenient for you? I'm just curious.

I mean, maybe you could read them to these guys. He's going to give you the traditional sixteen means.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, sure. No, no, no scripture says that. Yeah, that's true.

[Speaker 1]
Dun gyal tongpa, mi tat dun gyal tongpa dak me. Mi tat dun gyal tongpa dak me. The other one is gyu, and khen, and jungkung, and gokpa, shiwa.

Yeah, do it next time. Okay, here we go. Now, next line, which Nick's going to read.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Yeah, the shena is a question from the other guy, right?

[Speaker 1]
Now, if you ask me the following question, well, gyal te de tan na, what? If that's the way it is, if that's the way it is, then what do they mean when you focus on the four truths? This mik is focus, right?

And then you see them as possessing sixteen different aspects of impermanence, which is the first of the first, right? Etc. So, why did they talk about when you focus on the truth of suffering, you see four different aspects, etc.?

So, why do they go into that if you're right? If you're right and the whole experience is one aspect, then why do they talk about sixteen different aspects?

[Speaker 2]
And we answer, Good.

[Speaker 1]
De dag ni, oh, those sixteen you mean. Oh, they were just for gyu minpa. They were ripening the minds of the lower guys during sok jor.

Yeah, during the first two paths. They got nothing to do with the third path, honey. Okay?

Those are just complicated explanations that we give to people, ne kap su, during the first path and the second path, so they have something to meditate on. Gompa jawa. Okay?

That's all. They were meant for people of lower intellect to give them something to think about on the first two paths. Lam tsam kyi.

That's all they are. They're just a path that was created to gyu minpa, to ripen their minds and give them something to think about on the first two paths. And here's the disjunct.

But, they are not the path to liberation, meaning the direct perception of emptiness here. I made a note, right? They are not the actual path to liberation.

Why? Because if something's going to be that, de la, for that, for that to be the path of liberation, nge pa du, you definitely got to be chur rang chen me pa. You got to perceive directly that things don't have any nature of their own.

And don't tell me these 16 aspects. Third path has to be the direct perception that things don't have their own nature. Like fire is not hot.

Whenever you see not its own nature, think of fire. Think of fire. Think of aspirin.

You're supposed to. Don't think no nature. You won't remember.

Fire is not hot. The only thing you can perceive in the third path is that. That's all.

Don't tell me impermanence, nge pa du, suffering. Don't give me all these 16 aspects. That's not what you see in the third path.

Therefore, they were invented to help people in the first two paths. Exactly. Yeah.

Chur, as being, own nature-less. That's the Daini grammar case there.

[Speaker 2]
Is that should be general? Or do you mean things in general?

[Speaker 1]
I would say things. Things. But it's a good question.

He hasn't been on that theme. He hasn't been touching on that theme. So I think here he just wants to say things.

In general. He hasn't been talking about that distinction. He could have said nge pa.

And it would have meant things also. Vama. Say again?

I'm going to split this one to make it easier for you. Okay, go.

[Speaker 2]
... ... ...

...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, now here's another controversial statement. Te chung.

[Speaker 2]
Lower the little listeners.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, those people of little learning. Okay, so put down. Typical Gyaltsabje.

Those who didn't read much. Gyaltsabje is the one who accused ... What was his name?

... No, he accused a great Sakya scholar.

[Speaker 2]
... ...

[Speaker 1]
He wrote a twelve volume book about the professional wisdom. And Gyaltsabje said, his problem is he hasn't learned much. What was that?

Chuky Senge. Okay, great Sakya scholar.

[Speaker 2]
Where did Gyaltsabje say that?

[Speaker 1]
It was in a debate ground somewhere. He said, your problem is you haven't studied much. And he just wrote a twelve volume commentary.

Okay, I think it's Chuky Senge. Anyway, here he says the word again. He repeats the theme.

Those of you who haven't had much time to study, you would claim that in the Jamche, in the Maitreya teachings, which I take to be Jamche Dhingar, the five books of Maitreya, of which, what are some of them?

[Speaker 2]
Abhisamankara, the Jewel of the Sutras, the Higher Line, etc.

[Speaker 1]
... Yeah, in those, some people say, Shemawa, okay, some people say that they teach that there are Nyantas, lower school people, who also perceive the emptiness of things. He's attacking people who say that they point to those five books of Maitreya and say, in those books, they describe people of the Hinayana who have seen emptiness directly.

Which is one of Tsongkhapa's favorite subjects. And he says they do. There are lower Aryas.

There are lower Arhats. But here, is he saying Tsongkhapa is too true? Okay.

Okay, I'll say it again. Those of little learning, they claim that in the books of Maitreya, it's described that Nyantas, meaning lower practitioners, can also, young, perceive that things have no nature of their own. While we're on the subject of things having no nature of their own, which must all be the same flavor.

And you can't divide it into sixteen, okay? So, there are people who say that. But, go ahead, he completes his insult in the following words.

Yeah, I don't know the word sulum. I looked it up. Okay, here are some opinions on it.

The Great Dictionary calls it sulchur, which means fake system. Rangso, which means you made it up yourself. Matapi chupam, which means behavior which is ill-considered.

Those are the three Great Dictionary. Das says rash and hasty, obstinate, liar, falsehood. So, you can choose.

Yeah, I'd say this is just some kind of BS. Just BS. Basik means nothing more.

It's just basik of those who are kepa machepa, who are not wise guys. Wise guy? No, wise men.

Yeah, yeah. And they are not familiar. Di, ndi, it's gom, same.

Yeah, this spelling means di. They are unfamiliar with the divisions of the Great Books, which are like an ocean. The Great Books of the Shintachyambanam, the two great innovators.

So, people who talk like that are unfamiliar with the Ocean of Wisdom, which was composed by the great two innovators. And they're just kind of making it up, fake it until they make it. They are just faking it until they make it.

They don't know what they're talking about. But it is a tenant of the highest middle-way school that non-Mahayana people can see emptiness directly, and they do. Now, is there some way to reconcile the two viewpoints here?

No, it's not true. You can achieve arhat in the lower way. Then there's no lower way arhat.

Philosophy. Well, then there's no hinayana arhat. Yeah, okay.

But there's another way to get out of this problem here. There's another way to get out of the problem here. There's another way to get out of the problem here.

What's that?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Because he specified which books. Yeah. So he's just saying, if you think those five books said that, you're crazy.

But he didn't say other books couldn't say it. All he said was, those people talk about the five books of Maitreya, and they claim that those five books say that hinayana people can reach the direct perception of emptiness. But he didn't say no books.

I mean, that's another way you can get out of it. I don't know. That's all.

The only reason it came up here was, we said, if you see emptiness directly, it's not in different flavors. It's one flavor, which is rangchen mepa. And by the way, if you say that Maitreya said that people saw that who are on the lower way, you're wrong.

Yeah, you're an idiot. Okay, good luck, Nick. We're moving on.

[Speaker 2]
Maybe, but he doesn't say that.

[Speaker 1]
Well, here's some more information on it.

[Speaker 2]
DANG THAMS CAD KHYEN PA'I LAM NI SU BYAS PA'I PHYO LA DU MI DAG SOGS RNAMS PA CHUD DUG PA ZHUGS BSTAN GYIS RANG BZHIN MED PAR THOGS DGOS PAR GANG YANG MA BRTEN PA'I PHYIR Yeah, now this is controversial, okay?

[Speaker 1]
Jamche, the five books of Maitreya, JE DANG DANG BYAS PA'I ZHUNG along with the books which follow their tradition, which were written after them in commentary, in none of them, okay, GANG GI YANG with a negative, in none of them do they talk about the path of freedom referring to the two of simple freedom and also omniscience. So whether you're talking about reaching nirvana or reaching omniscience, okay, they don't divide. DAG SOGS RNAMS PA CHUD DUG PA ZHUGS BSTAN GYIS I'm confused about this.

I don't know. I would have put MA BRTEN. Let's keep going.

Those sixteen aspects of being impermanent, which is the first of the first truths, et cetera, they just talk about those. BA ZHIG PA BRTEN They just talk about that, but they don't at all talk about how you have to see that things have no nature of their own. But that's not true of Maitreya's books and the people who wrote commentaries, like the thousands of books in the monasteries.

Well, yeah, but, I mean, all the books talk about it. I would have reversed it. Here it says they teach the sixteen, but they don't teach that you have to see that nothing has any nature at all.

No, it's the opposite here. They just teach the sixteen, and they don't talk about having to perceive that nothing has any nature at all. So it's confusing to me.

I don't know. I would have put it opposite. I would have said they don't focus on the sixteen.

They teach that you must see that nothing has any nature of its own. He said the opposite here. Let's keep going, and sometimes what comes later helps us with what comes earlier, but in Nick's text it happens to not.

Yeah, maybe we're going to get some help. Yeah, yeah, I'm going to cut it there. Ludobhyavase, Nagarjuna and his spiritual son Ayodhya, according to their idea, and as we see it commented on by Chandrakirti, chal here means commented on, right?

In all those scriptures, those are the ones sixteen or fifteen, were spoken to be nothing more than ways of ripening the student's mind. Okay? Okay.

What's that? Yeah, so maybe up here they're talking about a sangha or the lower middle way guys. They like the sixteen thing, but they don't talk much about no self-nature in the Prasangika way.

But Nagarjuna's system and Chandrakirti's system, they say the sixteen were just taught to help people along on the two lower paths. And Trollamdu, you want to read that? Yeah, and they didn't say who.

Nagarjuna and his gang. Now the first gang sounds like a sangha and his gang. And the second sounds like Nagarjuna and his gang.

Now don't forget, it looks like the first gang, a sangha's gang, did talk about the sixteen and didn't talk about things having no nature of their own, which is lower middle way. They are the 50-50ers. So they didn't say ever things have no nature of their own.

They say 50%. So that was their view on these two questions. How do they feel about the sixteen?

A sangha and his gang. No, no, what's their system? Yeah, Trollam.

Here, Trollam to Mithapa. They like the sixteen, and they only talk about the sixteen, and they don't talk about you higher middle wayer guys, no self-existence. But when you get to Nagarjuna and his gang, which includes Chandrakirti commenting on him, in there they say, the Deidak, meaning the sixteen, are just meant to help ripen people's minds, okay?

And with regard to the path to freedom, which is the direct perception, emptiness, Kanduyan Masoom, they never describe them in terms of the sixteen. Nagarjuna and his gang never talk about the sixteen and only talk about no self-nature. And a sangha gang only talks about the sixteen and never talk about no self-nature.

Opposite, okay? Deidaki luglek par thugne. But you guys have perfectly mixed them up.

Yeah, thug means messed up. By the way, thug is the verb that you're not supposed to do to your lama ever. Never upset their mind.

Like, I couldn't fundraise that. Then the lama's... Thug means like this.

When you make milkshake in Tibet, it's called thug. So there's a tantric value. You're not supposed to thug your lama's mind.

This thug means they have... Why did he say luglek par? They reversed it, okay?

They say a sangha gang focused on the sixteen and don't talk about emptiness. They like that one. And then when they get to Nagarjuna, they're like, he's confused.

Why? When he talks about path of seeing, he doesn't talk about the sixteen and he just talks about how nothing has any nature of its own. That's their complaint to Nagarjuna.

Got it? And he says, you dudes have perfectly messed up these two systems. You've perfectly confused these two systems.

And not only that, okay? Fifty bucks for the rest of the sentence. I'm taking a break.

Not quite. Almost. The bhang is past tense.

You're down to twenty-five. Yeah. It's a special bad karma to say the Heart Sutra sucks.

It's a special bad karma to talk bad about a scripture. And he says, you dudes are collecting this karma. When you say there's sixteen aspects to the direct perception of emptiness, you think you're quoting the Buddha, but you are destroying the Dharma.

You're collecting that karma. That's very gel subject. He's like threatening everybody.

He doesn't say, you guys got it wrong. He says, you are collecting ... Okay, here.

You are collecting that special karma where you have given up the holy Dharma. He did not. Be careful.

You want to collect some bad karma? You're not tricking my mind. My mind is happy.

[Speaker 2]
How many?

[Speaker 1]
I'll give him forty. I mean the verb was past tense. You are going to collect the karma where you did give up the holy Dharma.

Okay. Do we have time to go on?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, okay. All right.

[Speaker 1]
That's lucky because I'm about out of understanding this stuff.

[Speaker 2]
I stopped here.

[Speaker 1]
Now, answer his question for fifty bucks. Fifty bucks here. He said, are you not allowed ever to teach the sixteen aspects?

And he said, if it would bring lower people higher. Especially if they like complicated things. Yeah, especially people like Word who like complicated things.

You can teach them the sixteen. That's a good karma. But to believe it is a bad karma.

To believe it isn't. If you think the mind goes through sixteen different permutations during the direct perception of emptiness, forget that.

[Speaker 2]
I found sixteen too.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah? Let him do it next time. Here we go.

Have a nice pee-pee. You are very welcome. I made it to another place.